< July 17 July 19 >

July 18

Category:Mixed martial arts venues

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. MER-C 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this is a WP:OCVENUE issue in line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_29#Category:WrestleMania_venues and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_10#Category:Professional_wrestling_venues_in_the_United_States. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 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:Defunct professional wrestling venues in the United States

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. MER-C 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Defunct professional wrestling venues in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: In line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_29#Category:WrestleMania_venues and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_10#Category:Professional_wrestling_venues_in_the_United_States, it seems like this is an issue of WP:OCVENUE. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 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:Works originally published in periodicals

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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: newspapers are serials not periodicals (as per respective articles) Fgnievinski (talk) 20:58, 18 July 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:Gaudiya Vaishnava texts

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 Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava‎ and Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava texts to Category:Gaudiya Vaishnavism‎. Keep Category:Gaudiya Vaishnavism‎. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge and delete per WP:SMALLCAT.
Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava texts contains two articles, already referring to each other.
Category:Gaudiya Vaishnavism, parent of the texts category, will become empty after the former deletion. It is probably a duplicate of Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 18 July 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 educated at Integrated College Dungannon

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete without prejudice: Integrated schools are wonderful in Northern Ireland; however this category has contained but one name since it was created. Doesn't really serve any valid purpose. Quis separabit? 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but does every school needs a list of alumni, especially when there is but one notable to be listed? Quis separabit? 11:55, 22 July 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:Telugu inscriptions

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one (near-epynomous) article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 18 July 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:Anga

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) 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete it only contains its epynomous article (about a historical kingdom) and a child category (with modern cities in the region). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 18 July 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:Islamic civilization

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, a "civilization" category is not meaningful as a child category, it only makes sense at the very top of a tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 18 July 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:Islamic philosophers

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories obviously have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 18 July 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:Muslim views

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: relist Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_12#Category:Muslim_views. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the scope of this category does not seem any more specific than the scope of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, the proposal does not suggest that Category:Sunni views or Category:Shia views would be redundant. If there are views only applicable to certain groups of Muslims or certain Muslim individuals, I'd be happy to keep or subcategorize that. But the category as is seems to contain articles that are applicable to Islam in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right there are a few articles here, e.g. about slavery, that definitely do not belong in "belief and doctrine" but rather in Category:Islam and society (in which category these few articles already are). So that would require a bit of purging. In general, however, I find it difficult to distinguish between "views" and "belief" if it comes to the more religious subjects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 29 August 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.

Kingdoms of clans‎

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. MER-C 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename by removing the word "main", which does not add any value. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 18 July 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.

Kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎

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 all to Category:Kingdoms in the Mahabharata. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Eastern kingdoms of ancient India‎‎‎ to Category:Eastern kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Northern kingdoms of ancient India‎‎‎ to Category:Northern kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎
  • Propose renaming Category:Southern kingdoms of ancient India‎‎‎ to Category:Southern kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎
  • Propose merging Category:Kingdoms south to the Vindhya ranges‎‎‎ to Category:Southern kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎ (see one line above)
  • Propose renaming Category:Western kingdoms of ancient India‎‎‎ to Category:Western kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎
  • Propose renaming Category:North-western kingdoms of ancient India‎‎‎ to Category:North-western kingdoms in the Mahabharata‎‎‎
Nominator's rationale: rename (and merge one). Less ambiguous names and C2C to parent category. Some kingdoms weren't even in India, they were in Central Asia (the north-western ones) or China/Tibet (the northern ones). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reaction. Could you indicate which exact articles of Category:Kingdoms south to the Vindhya ranges should go into the western instead of the southern cat? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On looking through I'm not entirely sure if the merge should happen this way or if southern should be merged under south of Vindhyas. Nasikya would go to the west, but Konkana would fit under both West and South, Anupa wouldn't fit in either (the Vindhyas were a defining geographic marker for those texts and standard north-south differentiation doesn't apply directly). I'll try to pick up some reading over the next few days and comment, unless someone like @Abecedare: can provide a better view immediately. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely support the renaming from "of ancient India" to "in the Mahabharata", since that is what the cats are being used for in any case, and the renaming will (somewhat) help avoid mixing of mythological/mytho-historical and true historical entities. The problem Spaceman mentions about the regional classification are true, and perhaps unavoidable. Is there a reason we even need to classify them as such, ie is simply upmerging them all to Category:Kingdoms in the Mahabharata an option? I don't offhand know of a (reliable) reference classifying all the kingdoms, but will take a look. Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 19 July 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:Non-profit organizations in Belize

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:STRONGNAT should use local variant of English. Belize uses British/Commonwealth English. Parent category is Organisations based in Belize. Standard practice is to used 'based in' as well AusLondonder (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Belize consistently uses British spellings. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 22 July 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:Organizations based in Grenada

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per WP:STRONGNAT should use local variation of English. Grenada uses British/Commonwealth English AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Grenada consistently uses British spellings. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did try that but User:Armbrust opposed and effectively vetoed the nominations, which meant they went stale. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: Am I mistaken about the British spellings in Grenada?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell that wasn't their reason for opposing, they didn't dispute the actual change AusLondonder (talk) 05:48, 23 July 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.
More