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, "period" is a better descriptor considering the content of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 4 March 2024 (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:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles
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:Gallery pages of Landscapes of Tajikistan
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:speedy delete per author request.
✗plicit 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Misapplication of categorization. —
Alalch E. 13:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't mind deleting categories, there was an error in the definition
(
talk) 02:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Meanwhile all four categories are empty, but based on the category names I suppose they contained files, and we already have dedicated files categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:57, 4 March 2024 (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:University linguistics organizations
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: Non-defining. These are organizations that happen to be at universities. That's not very helpful when linguistics is an academic field, so the norm is that organizations are connected with higher education in some way
Mason (
talk) 04:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, linguistics organizations are naturally linked to universities and colleges.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:30, 4 March 2024 (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:University of the Arctic
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:University of Wyoming colleges
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:Reportedly haunted locations in Raleigh, North Carolina
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only on page in here, which is unhelpful for navigaiton
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Split. Strange - when I created those categories I made sure there were at least six articles in each. Some of them must have "ghosted". I've added a second one that I found quickly, but that's still nowhere near enough.
Grutness...wha? 05:22, 4 March 2024 (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:Residential skyscrapers in Raleigh, North Carolina
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:19th-century Filipino economists
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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category and its related subcategories completely misunderstands the definition of "transhuman". These are all superhumans, not transhumans, which is a much more specific thing. There are fictional transhumans (Newtypes from Gundam come to mind) but none are actually listed here. We already have a category
Category:Fictional superhumans so this is not necessary.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Your reasoning for deleting this category are just a subjective interpretation of what "transhuman" means. Maybe there's some overlap between "superhuman" and "transhuman", but I don't see a reason to just get rid of the category altogether.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 04:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Either you see them as identical to superhumans, which appears to be your view, in which case I don't understand why they should be separate. Or you see it as a specific case of "human evolved to be something superior to humans", which is much more specific than simply being, say, a vampire or undead, which can just as easily be monsters. That would mean this category should not be here unless someone can isolate the specific characters that apply.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
A
transhuman is defined as "a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans". While
superhumans are defined as "humans, human-like beings or beings with qualities and abilities that exceed those naturally found in humans". That is too close to keep apart. Support nomination (though perhaps it should be a merge instead of deletion).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I am striking the "perhaps merge" part of my comment. Zxcvbnm is right that the category contains monsters rather than superhumans.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
OpposeTranshumanism is the basic idea of transforming
humans into "beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings." The concept typically covers "a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve and eventually will supplement or supersede it. "
Dimadick (
talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My argument is that the category contains no transhumans, so it is a misnomer. You are answering the strawman argument of whether transhumans are notable.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:55, 4 March 2024 (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:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars
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: Anachronistic and revisionist to use "Azerbaijani" in this era and especially to use it when referring to the
TurkomanAq Qoyunlu, and thus unsurprisingly not even used in
WP:RS. I already tried to explain it to the creator of the category but to no avail
[1].
HistoryofIran (
talk) 14:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It looks like this category was emptied before it was nominated. LizRead!Talk! 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is the second time the user has created this category (the first time it got deleted for being emptied when I reverted them). The reason I took it here this time is so we have a documented reason for its deletion. I'm not sure if
Category:Ottoman-Aq Qoyunlu wars is useful because I'm not sure if Aq Qoyunlu and Ottomans have had a "war" per se? Conflict sure, but something described as a "war" by scholars? Not so sure. A quick glance at ebooks didn't show anything. --
HistoryofIran (
talk) 23:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The main article on
Aq Qoyunlu covers Ottoman participation in power struggles over the Aq Qoyunlu's leadership position in the 1490s and the 1500s.
Dimadick (
talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought I'd add that this category is no longer empty. LizRead!Talk! 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As of relisting, the category has one article in it (
Battle of Koyulhisar (1461)). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, with one article in it, the category is not helpful for navigation. That is on top of the issues mentioned earlier.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. It's OR and doesn't aid navigation.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:00, 4 March 2024 (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.
Category:1803 American novels
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one book in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, provided that these merges are further expanded in the 19th century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, happy to do that. I wanted to make sure that my idea was viable before I implemented it. :)
Mason (
talk) 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:rename, "period" is a better descriptor considering the content of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 4 March 2024 (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:Harold B. Lee Library-related film articles
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:Gallery pages of Landscapes of Tajikistan
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:speedy delete per author request.
✗plicit 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Misapplication of categorization. —
Alalch E. 13:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't mind deleting categories, there was an error in the definition
(
talk) 02:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Meanwhile all four categories are empty, but based on the category names I suppose they contained files, and we already have dedicated files categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:57, 4 March 2024 (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:University linguistics organizations
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: Non-defining. These are organizations that happen to be at universities. That's not very helpful when linguistics is an academic field, so the norm is that organizations are connected with higher education in some way
Mason (
talk) 04:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, linguistics organizations are naturally linked to universities and colleges.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:30, 4 March 2024 (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:University of the Arctic
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:University of Wyoming colleges
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:Reportedly haunted locations in Raleigh, North Carolina
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only on page in here, which is unhelpful for navigaiton
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Split. Strange - when I created those categories I made sure there were at least six articles in each. Some of them must have "ghosted". I've added a second one that I found quickly, but that's still nowhere near enough.
Grutness...wha? 05:22, 4 March 2024 (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:Residential skyscrapers in Raleigh, North Carolina
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:19th-century Filipino economists
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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category and its related subcategories completely misunderstands the definition of "transhuman". These are all superhumans, not transhumans, which is a much more specific thing. There are fictional transhumans (Newtypes from Gundam come to mind) but none are actually listed here. We already have a category
Category:Fictional superhumans so this is not necessary.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Your reasoning for deleting this category are just a subjective interpretation of what "transhuman" means. Maybe there's some overlap between "superhuman" and "transhuman", but I don't see a reason to just get rid of the category altogether.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 04:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Either you see them as identical to superhumans, which appears to be your view, in which case I don't understand why they should be separate. Or you see it as a specific case of "human evolved to be something superior to humans", which is much more specific than simply being, say, a vampire or undead, which can just as easily be monsters. That would mean this category should not be here unless someone can isolate the specific characters that apply.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 16:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
A
transhuman is defined as "a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans". While
superhumans are defined as "humans, human-like beings or beings with qualities and abilities that exceed those naturally found in humans". That is too close to keep apart. Support nomination (though perhaps it should be a merge instead of deletion).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I am striking the "perhaps merge" part of my comment. Zxcvbnm is right that the category contains monsters rather than superhumans.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
OpposeTranshumanism is the basic idea of transforming
humans into "beings with abilities so greatly expanded from the current condition as to merit the label of posthuman beings." The concept typically covers "a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve and eventually will supplement or supersede it. "
Dimadick (
talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
My argument is that the category contains no transhumans, so it is a misnomer. You are answering the strawman argument of whether transhumans are notable.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:55, 4 March 2024 (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:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars
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: Anachronistic and revisionist to use "Azerbaijani" in this era and especially to use it when referring to the
TurkomanAq Qoyunlu, and thus unsurprisingly not even used in
WP:RS. I already tried to explain it to the creator of the category but to no avail
[1].
HistoryofIran (
talk) 14:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It looks like this category was emptied before it was nominated. LizRead!Talk! 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is the second time the user has created this category (the first time it got deleted for being emptied when I reverted them). The reason I took it here this time is so we have a documented reason for its deletion. I'm not sure if
Category:Ottoman-Aq Qoyunlu wars is useful because I'm not sure if Aq Qoyunlu and Ottomans have had a "war" per se? Conflict sure, but something described as a "war" by scholars? Not so sure. A quick glance at ebooks didn't show anything. --
HistoryofIran (
talk) 23:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The main article on
Aq Qoyunlu covers Ottoman participation in power struggles over the Aq Qoyunlu's leadership position in the 1490s and the 1500s.
Dimadick (
talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought I'd add that this category is no longer empty. LizRead!Talk! 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As of relisting, the category has one article in it (
Battle of Koyulhisar (1461)). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, with one article in it, the category is not helpful for navigation. That is on top of the issues mentioned earlier.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. It's OR and doesn't aid navigation.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:00, 4 March 2024 (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.
Category:1803 American novels
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one book in here, which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, provided that these merges are further expanded in the 19th century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, happy to do that. I wanted to make sure that my idea was viable before I implemented it. :)
Mason (
talk) 14:56, 4 March 2024 (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.