The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. Vague, and
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS for a concept with not enough plausible other entries, besides the eponym itself, to avoid being a
WP:SMALLCAT.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:59, 3 February 2015 (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:Humangeographic territorial entities
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. Whereas there have been good ideas proposed in the discussion, I do not see consensus for any of them, and there was no comments since February. Feel free to renominate with more specific suggestions.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Administrative note: I've re-populated the category so users can see how the category is being applied. (For clarity, it's best not to empty a category before nominating it for deletion, even if you feel that the category is being misapplied to certain articles.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Oh okay, I'll try to remember that. I guess I should add the more suitable category instead of replacing the queried one with it. Thanks.
Squiver (
talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
But is "humangeographic" a valid (English) word?
Squiver (
talk) 09:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
What other word could there be as an adjective to Human geography?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
If there is one, I doubt it's suitable for an encyclopedia. If I had to coin one, "human-geographic" comes to mind -- not "humangeographic", which certainly looks invented to me -- but I'd try not to "write myself into this corner" anyway. "Humangeographic territorial entities" is pretty unwieldy and (as below) seems overdone in two ways: a territory is already an "entity", a "thing"; and by default, I think, unless it's already in a non-human context, the first assumption is that it refers to humans.
Squiver (
talk) 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment What distinction is territorial entity making from territory? I would merge and replace
Territory (country subdivision) and
Territorial entity with a broader
territory (human geography) instead, or even just
Territory covering both humans and an animal section linking into
Territory (animal). The disambiguation at
Territory isn't really a true disambiguation, because it's listing different types of territory (not true different meanings of the word like
pike and
pike). Does anyone mind if I go ahead with this change? The category needs lots of fixing, not least to address the fact that practically everything in the
Category:Territories (bar protests and disputes) could be put under the entities category. By the way, the above nomination is effectively
Category:Non-physiographic territories: a category that will contain a vast array of material (especially if you go sub-national) that will bear little relation.
SFB 19:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the distinction that we should make (and that's why I made my comment about purging) is for example between
Military district as an article about an abstract "humangeographic" phenomenon on the one hand and
List of American states as an article about concrete territories in a specific region in the world on the other hand.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I would be perfectly fine with closing this discussion as 'no consensus' and starting a new CfD in order to discuss the broader context of the tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Airlines Flying To 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: Don't see the need to have a category that includes all the airlines flying to a given destination. Maybe "[[Category:Airlines flying to the Moon]]" can be accepted but this is too much. JetstreamerTalk 22:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete not defining. Imagine if we had categories for every destination, and categories are forever, so we'd have to have all sorts of long-defunct airlines categorized into long-defunct airport/route categories. Noooooo.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Especially since categories are supposed to be permanently in place. So any airline that every flew to Tehran would be here. Do we really want a place where we categorize airlines by every city they have ever had service to?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Destinations are not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the airlines, and this would lead to extreme category bloat as similar categories were created for every single city on earth which has an airport.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Destinations are not defining. This has the same objection as performance (here destination) by performer (airline). Allowing this will provide appalling category clutter. In view of sanctions the number flying to this one may be limited, but the principle applies.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (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:Roman Catholic Churches completed in 1969
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:administrative close: speedily deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I created it with a typo (capital C), correct name exists
Doprendek (
talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, really belongs in Speedy Deletion, I have since posted there
Doprendek (
talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (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:Pre-Conquest castles
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. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 07:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Not sure what to do here. This is for pre Norman conquest, based on the comments. The current name is miscapatilized so at minimum, that needs to be fixed. Since that category is not likely to grow, it may fall into the small category for justification. I think upmerge is all that is needed. The questions is, is one category sufficient for the upmerge. If kept, it should probably be renamed to
Category:Pre-Norman conquest castles. Open to suggestions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
1) Firstly, I strongly disagree on the "pre-Norman conquest castles" rename; de-capitalization shouldn't be done either. The current name is the de-facto standard in the scholarly literature: compare
Google Scholar searches for
"pre-Norman conquest castle" /
"pre-Norman conquest castles" (0 + 0 = 0 results) and
"pre-Conquest castle" /
"pre-Conquest castles" (16 + 17 = 33 results); also note that "Conquest" is capitalized in virtually every instance in the second case.
2) For basically the same reason I oppose the merge; it is a category of castles that is studied by scholars; it is interesting in its own right, being one of the very few traces of pre-Conquest Norman influences left in existence. The fact that
Category:Norman architecture in England can not be transferred from this category to
Category:Ruined castles in England should be taken into account, too (we could obviously just add it to the four pre-Conquest castles, but their distinctness would be lost among the other 200+ articles as a result).
@
Vegaswikian, thanks for the typical wiki-bureaucratic answer, with no links to rules backing the rationale, "I don't care" argument, WP-links, and everything!
Or, to put it in words and not emotions:
a) Why is small size a problem? Is there a policy against it? Please, be more specific.
b) What naming conventions does the name "Pre-Conquest castles" violate? Please, be more specific.
c) As
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains, 'These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid'. So, please, don't be rude. And yes, please, be more specific.
Oppose Primaler gives good reasons to keep the category, but Vegaswikian brings up valid concerns with the naming. I do not doubt that "Pre-Conquest castles" is widely used, but per
Wikipedia:Categorization#General_conventions we should avoid abbreviations. "Pre-Conquest castles" is an abbreviation for "Pre-Norman conquest castles".
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming as proposed, but it should be renamed, to "Category: Pre-Norman castles in England" which provided sufficient context.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Alt rename as
Category: Anglo-Saxon castles in England because, after all, this is what these appear to be (and fits with the current category tree). It's a confusing category at the moment because the current inclusion criteria is not born out by the descriptions in the four articles (there's no reference to any of them being in the 'Norman style'). Who else was building castles in England prior to the Norman Conquest?
Sionk (
talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Prefer --
Category: Pre-Norman castles in England or perhaps
Category: English castles built before 1066. 1066 is a highly significant date in English history, not a random one. There were a few such castles, but very few, mostly built by Normans who came to England with
Edward the Confessor, after he succeeded a series of three Danish kings. Certain older histories will say that there was a Saxon castle in a certain place. that is usually the result of a misunderstanding of the nature of burh, which was a fortified town, not a castle. Burhs should not be populated to this category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
So basically you're saying these are Viking castles, right? Then why not name the category Viking castles? Or Castles in England built by Scandinavians?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Listify or something like that and Merge. The heading of the category says "There are only four such castles known". So until people make major archeological discoveries, this category will have a limit of 4.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (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:Topics of country subdivisions
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:Rename or merge. Requested name is what I think was intended; country subdivisions don't "have" topics.
Squiver (
talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not 100% confident they amount to the same thing, but if they do, that makes sense. Can anyone confirm or correct?
Squiver (
talk) 09:46, 9 February 2015 (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 intrastate divisions
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. --
BDD (
talk) 15:09, 10 February 2015 (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:Towns of Noakhali
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. --
BDD (
talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Category is redundant.
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:43, 3 February 2015 (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:Songs by album
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:Delete. To categorize songs by what album(s) on which they appear seems like overcategorization to me. For starters, one needs only go to the album article to see what songs are on the album (it's called a track listing). Secondly, in each song article in these categories, there are already multiple templates linking readers to every other song from the album in the song's infobox as well as in a navbox for the album. Also, some of the categories contain redirects for songs that take one back to the album for which the category is named, which is just wasteful navigation. As a scheme, this could lead to a big mess. Should a song be categorized by every album it appears on? Say, for example, I can put
I Feel Fine in
Category:Songs from Past Masters and
Category:Songs from 1962–1966? What about songs that have been covered by multiple artists?
Let It Be (song) could be placed in categories such as
Category:Songs from This Girl's in Love with You, an album by Aretha Franklin. Or what about entire albums of covers? Susan Boyle's
I Dreamed a Dream (album) was very popular and, under this scheme, I'd see nothing wrong with creating
Category:Songs from I Dream a Dream and putting
Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song) and
Daydream Believer in it. I believe this is the path this type of categorization could lead to. The scheme of
Category:Songs by artist doesn't need to be narrowed further by each album by the artist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. I was going to suggest listify, but I think they are already listified. LOL. . --
Richhoncho (
talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. I'd noticed these and it's a bad idea.
Oculi (
talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Ritchie333:. Surely the Thriller template does that more than adequately? If only one category exists then why not for other artists, until every album has it's own category, including No Jacket Required (LOL)? --
Richhoncho (
talk) 12:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The tracklistings on the albums' main articles, and navbox templates, are sufficient. Even for Thriller. (Not to mention that most of these contain some song titles which exist only as redirects to the album, completely vitiating the necessity of categorizing them as being songs on the same album that they're redirects to.)
Bearcat (
talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it at least make sense to upmerge to the respective parent album categories? -
Bossanoven (
talk) 03:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The songs are already in the respective songs by artist category (e.g.
Category:The Beatles songs,
Category:Pink Floyd songs) and upmerging them to the eponymous album categories you created just results in the same exact problem with these categories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. It might be relevant to mention the various Beatles album templates also (
Template:Revolver,
Template:Abbey Road, etc) – the necessity of similar temps for two of Bob Dylan's albums are currently
under discussion. (As with these newly created Categories, do we really need the album templates, which do little more that repeat the tracklist temps appearing in each infobox?)
JG66 (
talk) 05:42, 6 February 2015 (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:12th-century Christian 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.
Nominator's rationale: Why does
Category:Archbishops by century start using "Christian archbishops" from the 12th century on? An
archbishop seems to be a position unique to Christianity. There are all in category trees for Christian clergy anyway. --
BDD (
talk) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support archbishop does seem to be a uniquely Christian title.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per Carlossuarez. "Christian" is redundant here.
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as above.
Squiver (
talk) 09:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Archbishops are indeed unique to Christianity.
Relentlessly (
talk) 18:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename all -- I recall Buddhist bishops being referred to in Vietnam during the war there, but suspect that this was the result of the Colonial French applying a Christian term to another religion or even requiring it to have bishops. However this is no doubt a translation of a native term. I therefore see no objection.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (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:Discworld articles to be merged
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 as empty, without prejudice to re-creation if ever needed. –
FayenaticLondon 09:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Strange to have a category for articles to be merged within a specific project.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 09:41, 2 February 2015 (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 assassinated politicians
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 alt rename Categories should start at the top of the logical tree, not skip to narrow ones like the above. This also works well as it ensures that fictional politicians remain in
Category:Fictional politicians as well, which is a desirable result as assassinated isn't really a kind of politician anyway.
SFB 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alt rename This is categorization by assassination, not by position. If the category grows to big, more specfic subcategories might be justified.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support
Category:Fictional assassinated people. We don't have enough articles about fictional characters who were assassinated to require subcategorizing them by individual occupation at the present time.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Apparently the nominator also agrees to the alternative, as the proposal of the nominator has changed accordingly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (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:People charged with sedition
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:Rename and purge.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally do not categorize people by what crimes they were charged with. Sometimes we categorize them by what crimes they were convicted of, so this could be converted to
Category:People convicted of sedition if the non-convicts were removed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative proposal by nominator: rename and purge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative to keep the convicts but free the innocent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative. Being convicted of a crime is a legitimately defining characteristic which justifies a category — but merely being charged with a crime is not.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename as above and purge of unconvicted persons. Being charged is not a satisfactory basis for a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (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:Delta Tau Delta members
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:Delete. A consensus was established quite a number of years ago not to categorize people by membership in fraternities or sororities. I don't think this particular one has been created before, though.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC) In 2007, this was previous deleted under a slightly different name
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Question, can we find this past discussion somewhere? Or else, what was the main rationale for this consensus?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Have I become so predictable :-)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
No, not really—I just wanted someone to ask to give me an excuse for listing 27 previous discussions.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not a defining feature of the subjects. Membership of a social organisation is not of much relevance towards the aim of gathering highly related subjects, unless that person is well-known as a protagonist in that movement (e.g.
Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians,
Category:College fraternity founders). Most people are members of such organisations during their lives (nature trusts, historical organisations, hunting clubs, trade unions, political parties, etc.), but simple membership is usually not that crucial a link between one subject and another subject who is a member (at least in terms of Wikipedia navigation). This is still valid information to have in the encyclopaedia, which is why we have
List of Delta Tau Delta members – it's useful to see all the members in context with each other. Creating a contextless navigation structure between those articles that even excludes articles on the society of membership is a bad idea.
SFB 19:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not
WP:DEFINING, per 27 past precedents against it.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I think it is pretty clear this is not a category that fits out guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (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.
Delete per nom. Vague, and
WP:OC#EPONYMOUS for a concept with not enough plausible other entries, besides the eponym itself, to avoid being a
WP:SMALLCAT.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:59, 3 February 2015 (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:Humangeographic territorial entities
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. Whereas there have been good ideas proposed in the discussion, I do not see consensus for any of them, and there was no comments since February. Feel free to renominate with more specific suggestions.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Administrative note: I've re-populated the category so users can see how the category is being applied. (For clarity, it's best not to empty a category before nominating it for deletion, even if you feel that the category is being misapplied to certain articles.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Oh okay, I'll try to remember that. I guess I should add the more suitable category instead of replacing the queried one with it. Thanks.
Squiver (
talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
But is "humangeographic" a valid (English) word?
Squiver (
talk) 09:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
What other word could there be as an adjective to Human geography?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
If there is one, I doubt it's suitable for an encyclopedia. If I had to coin one, "human-geographic" comes to mind -- not "humangeographic", which certainly looks invented to me -- but I'd try not to "write myself into this corner" anyway. "Humangeographic territorial entities" is pretty unwieldy and (as below) seems overdone in two ways: a territory is already an "entity", a "thing"; and by default, I think, unless it's already in a non-human context, the first assumption is that it refers to humans.
Squiver (
talk) 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment What distinction is territorial entity making from territory? I would merge and replace
Territory (country subdivision) and
Territorial entity with a broader
territory (human geography) instead, or even just
Territory covering both humans and an animal section linking into
Territory (animal). The disambiguation at
Territory isn't really a true disambiguation, because it's listing different types of territory (not true different meanings of the word like
pike and
pike). Does anyone mind if I go ahead with this change? The category needs lots of fixing, not least to address the fact that practically everything in the
Category:Territories (bar protests and disputes) could be put under the entities category. By the way, the above nomination is effectively
Category:Non-physiographic territories: a category that will contain a vast array of material (especially if you go sub-national) that will bear little relation.
SFB 19:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I think the distinction that we should make (and that's why I made my comment about purging) is for example between
Military district as an article about an abstract "humangeographic" phenomenon on the one hand and
List of American states as an article about concrete territories in a specific region in the world on the other hand.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I would be perfectly fine with closing this discussion as 'no consensus' and starting a new CfD in order to discuss the broader context of the tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Airlines Flying To 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: Don't see the need to have a category that includes all the airlines flying to a given destination. Maybe "[[Category:Airlines flying to the Moon]]" can be accepted but this is too much. JetstreamerTalk 22:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete not defining. Imagine if we had categories for every destination, and categories are forever, so we'd have to have all sorts of long-defunct airlines categorized into long-defunct airport/route categories. Noooooo.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Especially since categories are supposed to be permanently in place. So any airline that every flew to Tehran would be here. Do we really want a place where we categorize airlines by every city they have ever had service to?
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Destinations are not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the airlines, and this would lead to extreme category bloat as similar categories were created for every single city on earth which has an airport.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Destinations are not defining. This has the same objection as performance (here destination) by performer (airline). Allowing this will provide appalling category clutter. In view of sanctions the number flying to this one may be limited, but the principle applies.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (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:Roman Catholic Churches completed in 1969
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:administrative close: speedily deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I created it with a typo (capital C), correct name exists
Doprendek (
talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry, really belongs in Speedy Deletion, I have since posted there
Doprendek (
talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (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:Pre-Conquest castles
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. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 07:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Not sure what to do here. This is for pre Norman conquest, based on the comments. The current name is miscapatilized so at minimum, that needs to be fixed. Since that category is not likely to grow, it may fall into the small category for justification. I think upmerge is all that is needed. The questions is, is one category sufficient for the upmerge. If kept, it should probably be renamed to
Category:Pre-Norman conquest castles. Open to suggestions.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
1) Firstly, I strongly disagree on the "pre-Norman conquest castles" rename; de-capitalization shouldn't be done either. The current name is the de-facto standard in the scholarly literature: compare
Google Scholar searches for
"pre-Norman conquest castle" /
"pre-Norman conquest castles" (0 + 0 = 0 results) and
"pre-Conquest castle" /
"pre-Conquest castles" (16 + 17 = 33 results); also note that "Conquest" is capitalized in virtually every instance in the second case.
2) For basically the same reason I oppose the merge; it is a category of castles that is studied by scholars; it is interesting in its own right, being one of the very few traces of pre-Conquest Norman influences left in existence. The fact that
Category:Norman architecture in England can not be transferred from this category to
Category:Ruined castles in England should be taken into account, too (we could obviously just add it to the four pre-Conquest castles, but their distinctness would be lost among the other 200+ articles as a result).
@
Vegaswikian, thanks for the typical wiki-bureaucratic answer, with no links to rules backing the rationale, "I don't care" argument, WP-links, and everything!
Or, to put it in words and not emotions:
a) Why is small size a problem? Is there a policy against it? Please, be more specific.
b) What naming conventions does the name "Pre-Conquest castles" violate? Please, be more specific.
c) As
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains, 'These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid'. So, please, don't be rude. And yes, please, be more specific.
Oppose Primaler gives good reasons to keep the category, but Vegaswikian brings up valid concerns with the naming. I do not doubt that "Pre-Conquest castles" is widely used, but per
Wikipedia:Categorization#General_conventions we should avoid abbreviations. "Pre-Conquest castles" is an abbreviation for "Pre-Norman conquest castles".
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming as proposed, but it should be renamed, to "Category: Pre-Norman castles in England" which provided sufficient context.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump) 10:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Alt rename as
Category: Anglo-Saxon castles in England because, after all, this is what these appear to be (and fits with the current category tree). It's a confusing category at the moment because the current inclusion criteria is not born out by the descriptions in the four articles (there's no reference to any of them being in the 'Norman style'). Who else was building castles in England prior to the Norman Conquest?
Sionk (
talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Prefer --
Category: Pre-Norman castles in England or perhaps
Category: English castles built before 1066. 1066 is a highly significant date in English history, not a random one. There were a few such castles, but very few, mostly built by Normans who came to England with
Edward the Confessor, after he succeeded a series of three Danish kings. Certain older histories will say that there was a Saxon castle in a certain place. that is usually the result of a misunderstanding of the nature of burh, which was a fortified town, not a castle. Burhs should not be populated to this category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 21:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)reply
So basically you're saying these are Viking castles, right? Then why not name the category Viking castles? Or Castles in England built by Scandinavians?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Listify or something like that and Merge. The heading of the category says "There are only four such castles known". So until people make major archeological discoveries, this category will have a limit of 4.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (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:Topics of country subdivisions
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:Rename or merge. Requested name is what I think was intended; country subdivisions don't "have" topics.
Squiver (
talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not 100% confident they amount to the same thing, but if they do, that makes sense. Can anyone confirm or correct?
Squiver (
talk) 09:46, 9 February 2015 (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 intrastate divisions
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. --
BDD (
talk) 15:09, 10 February 2015 (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:Towns of Noakhali
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. --
BDD (
talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Category is redundant.
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:43, 3 February 2015 (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:Songs by album
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:Delete. To categorize songs by what album(s) on which they appear seems like overcategorization to me. For starters, one needs only go to the album article to see what songs are on the album (it's called a track listing). Secondly, in each song article in these categories, there are already multiple templates linking readers to every other song from the album in the song's infobox as well as in a navbox for the album. Also, some of the categories contain redirects for songs that take one back to the album for which the category is named, which is just wasteful navigation. As a scheme, this could lead to a big mess. Should a song be categorized by every album it appears on? Say, for example, I can put
I Feel Fine in
Category:Songs from Past Masters and
Category:Songs from 1962–1966? What about songs that have been covered by multiple artists?
Let It Be (song) could be placed in categories such as
Category:Songs from This Girl's in Love with You, an album by Aretha Franklin. Or what about entire albums of covers? Susan Boyle's
I Dreamed a Dream (album) was very popular and, under this scheme, I'd see nothing wrong with creating
Category:Songs from I Dream a Dream and putting
Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song) and
Daydream Believer in it. I believe this is the path this type of categorization could lead to. The scheme of
Category:Songs by artist doesn't need to be narrowed further by each album by the artist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. I was going to suggest listify, but I think they are already listified. LOL. . --
Richhoncho (
talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. I'd noticed these and it's a bad idea.
Oculi (
talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Ritchie333:. Surely the Thriller template does that more than adequately? If only one category exists then why not for other artists, until every album has it's own category, including No Jacket Required (LOL)? --
Richhoncho (
talk) 12:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The tracklistings on the albums' main articles, and navbox templates, are sufficient. Even for Thriller. (Not to mention that most of these contain some song titles which exist only as redirects to the album, completely vitiating the necessity of categorizing them as being songs on the same album that they're redirects to.)
Bearcat (
talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it at least make sense to upmerge to the respective parent album categories? -
Bossanoven (
talk) 03:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
The songs are already in the respective songs by artist category (e.g.
Category:The Beatles songs,
Category:Pink Floyd songs) and upmerging them to the eponymous album categories you created just results in the same exact problem with these categories. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom. It might be relevant to mention the various Beatles album templates also (
Template:Revolver,
Template:Abbey Road, etc) – the necessity of similar temps for two of Bob Dylan's albums are currently
under discussion. (As with these newly created Categories, do we really need the album templates, which do little more that repeat the tracklist temps appearing in each infobox?)
JG66 (
talk) 05:42, 6 February 2015 (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:12th-century Christian 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.
Nominator's rationale: Why does
Category:Archbishops by century start using "Christian archbishops" from the 12th century on? An
archbishop seems to be a position unique to Christianity. There are all in category trees for Christian clergy anyway. --
BDD (
talk) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support archbishop does seem to be a uniquely Christian title.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per Carlossuarez. "Christian" is redundant here.
Forbes72 (
talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as above.
Squiver (
talk) 09:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Archbishops are indeed unique to Christianity.
Relentlessly (
talk) 18:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename all -- I recall Buddhist bishops being referred to in Vietnam during the war there, but suspect that this was the result of the Colonial French applying a Christian term to another religion or even requiring it to have bishops. However this is no doubt a translation of a native term. I therefore see no objection.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (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:Discworld articles to be merged
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 as empty, without prejudice to re-creation if ever needed. –
FayenaticLondon 09:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Strange to have a category for articles to be merged within a specific project.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 09:41, 2 February 2015 (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 assassinated politicians
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 alt rename Categories should start at the top of the logical tree, not skip to narrow ones like the above. This also works well as it ensures that fictional politicians remain in
Category:Fictional politicians as well, which is a desirable result as assassinated isn't really a kind of politician anyway.
SFB 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alt rename This is categorization by assassination, not by position. If the category grows to big, more specfic subcategories might be justified.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 16:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support
Category:Fictional assassinated people. We don't have enough articles about fictional characters who were assassinated to require subcategorizing them by individual occupation at the present time.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Apparently the nominator also agrees to the alternative, as the proposal of the nominator has changed accordingly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (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:People charged with sedition
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:Rename and purge.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally do not categorize people by what crimes they were charged with. Sometimes we categorize them by what crimes they were convicted of, so this could be converted to
Category:People convicted of sedition if the non-convicts were removed.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative proposal by nominator: rename and purge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative to keep the convicts but free the innocent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative. Being convicted of a crime is a legitimately defining characteristic which justifies a category — but merely being charged with a crime is not.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename as above and purge of unconvicted persons. Being charged is not a satisfactory basis for a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (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:Delta Tau Delta members
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:Delete. A consensus was established quite a number of years ago not to categorize people by membership in fraternities or sororities. I don't think this particular one has been created before, though.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC) In 2007, this was previous deleted under a slightly different name
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Question, can we find this past discussion somewhere? Or else, what was the main rationale for this consensus?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Have I become so predictable :-)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
No, not really—I just wanted someone to ask to give me an excuse for listing 27 previous discussions.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is not a defining feature of the subjects. Membership of a social organisation is not of much relevance towards the aim of gathering highly related subjects, unless that person is well-known as a protagonist in that movement (e.g.
Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians,
Category:College fraternity founders). Most people are members of such organisations during their lives (nature trusts, historical organisations, hunting clubs, trade unions, political parties, etc.), but simple membership is usually not that crucial a link between one subject and another subject who is a member (at least in terms of Wikipedia navigation). This is still valid information to have in the encyclopaedia, which is why we have
List of Delta Tau Delta members – it's useful to see all the members in context with each other. Creating a contextless navigation structure between those articles that even excludes articles on the society of membership is a bad idea.
SFB 19:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not
WP:DEFINING, per 27 past precedents against it.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I think it is pretty clear this is not a category that fits out guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (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.