< February 1	February 3 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Personal Experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague, incorrect case, had only one member: Personal experience. Squiver (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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]

Propose deleting Category:Humangeographic territorial entities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. "Humangeographic"? Squiver (talk) 22:21, 2 February 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]
Delete non-standard description method.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to keep per Human geography and per opposite Category:Physiographic territorial entities. However, I would also suggest to purge the category such that it only contains articles about territorial entities as such, i.e. to remove all child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 3 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]

@Marcocapelle: Something like Category:Types of territory? SFB 22:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 5 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]

Merge to Category:Territorial entities. I cannot see the point of splitting this. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 8 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Airlines Flying To Tehran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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. Jetstreamer ^Talk 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.

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]

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Churches completed in 1969 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

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. – Fayenatic London 07:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pre-Conquest castles to Category:Ruined castles in England

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]

strongly oppose @Vegaswikian

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).

3) The size argument is not an argument at all. Category:Argentine popes‎, Category:Whig Party Presidents of the United States and Category:Old English dialects are unlikely to grow any time soon, either.

Primaler (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) @PrimalerOur naming conventions prevail.

2) Interesting is not defining.

3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Primaler (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Strong rename to something. WP:WORLDVIEW. "Conquest" is highly inappropriate, and completely lacking in context. Category: Pre-Norman castles in England would work. Conquest is not about 1066 -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:03, 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]
Support alternative to rename to Category: Pre-Norman castles in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 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]
Agree that "Pre-Conquest castles" is ambiguous, so support rename to Category:Anglo-Saxon castles or Category:Anglo-Saxon castles in England or Category:Pre-Norman castles in England and probably in that order. Squiver (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Category: Anglo-Saxon castles in England is an improvement over Category: Pre-Norman castles in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 4 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Categories by country subdivision. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Topics of country subdivisions to Category:Country subdivision topics or merging with Category:Categories by country subdivision as suggested below.

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]

Even with the explanation in the header, I can't really see how this category is different from Category:Categories by country subdivision. Can't they be merged? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 4 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.

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]

Propose deleting Category:History intrastate divisions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Odd name and only had a single member. Squiver (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which member was this? Please don't empty a category before discussing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, sorry – it was Category:Historical divisions in Sweden. The name doesn't make sense anyway. Squiver (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Support delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 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.

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]

Propose deleting Category:Towns of Noakhali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Was newly created outside the established hierarchy, and redundant to Category:Populated places in Noakhali District PamD 20:24, 2 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Songs by album (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and its subcategories:

Category:Songs from Abbey Road‎
Category:Songs from The Dark Side of the Moon‎
Category:Songs from Quadrophenia‎
Category:Songs from Revolver‎
Category:Songs from Rubber Soul‎
Category:Songs from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band‎
Category:Songs from Tommy‎
Category:Songs from The Wall‎
Category:Songs from Who's Next‎

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. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk 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]
Delete all bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all before somebody creates Category:Songs from No Jacket Required. I would however make occasional exceptions such as Category:Songs from Thriller where the album contains a substantial amount of songs that are both notable for being on the album and in their own right (eg: as major hit singles) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 3 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. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that, inter alia, Category:The Beatles (album) has been created today as a way of circumventing this discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:05, 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:12th-century Christian archbishops to Category:12th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:13th-century Christian archbishops to Category:13th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:14th-century Christian archbishops to Category:14th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:15th-century Christian archbishops to Category:15th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:16th-century Christian archbishops to Category:16th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:17th-century Christian archbishops to Category:17th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:18th-century Christian archbishops to Category:18th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:19th-century Christian archbishops to Category:19th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:20th-century Christian archbishops to Category:20th-century archbishops
Propose renaming Category:21st-century Christian archbishops to Category:21st-century archbishops

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.

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. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Discworld articles to be merged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

Comment There are many project merge categories, (e.g. Category:School articles to be merged and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools) It seems like the question hinges more on how used the category is, rather than its association with a specific project. Forbes72 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found Category:Merge templates for WikiProjects so the question is there enough Discworld articles that this category is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Discworld is defunct so I'd argue it's unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 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.

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 to Category:Fictional assassinated people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose moving Category:Fictional assassinated politicians to ~~Category:Fictional assassinated nobility and politicians~~ Category:Fictional assassinated people

Nominator's rationale:being more inclusive is better than creating more categories. --173.55.119.156 (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rename: Category:Fictional assassinated people which is even more inclusive and besides a lot shorter. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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 מישהו Od Mishehu 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People charged with sedition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
Support Category:People convicted of sedition as above. Squiver (talk) 09:45, 4 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]
Rename and Purge to only those convicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Delta Tau Delta members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]
- @Marcocapelle: I thought you'd never ask: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. I see that this one has been deleted before: see #21 above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 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 not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 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.

February 2

Category:Personal Experience

Category:Humangeographic territorial entities

Category:Airlines Flying To Tehran

Category:Roman Catholic Churches completed in 1969

Category:Pre-Conquest castles

Category:Topics of country subdivisions

Category:History intrastate divisions

Category:Towns of Noakhali

Category:Songs by album

Category:12th-century Christian archbishops

Category:Discworld articles to be merged

Category:Fictional assassinated politicians

Category:People charged with sedition

Category:Delta Tau Delta members