< May 13 May 15 >

May 14

Category:History books about the Balkan 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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - amd yes, there is a need to upmerge this single article into Category:History books about wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article "Serbia and Albania". No need to upmerge, the one article is already correctly classified in Category:History books about Serbia and Category:History books about Albania. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 14 May 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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius (1909–44)

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 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius (1909–44) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. There are only heads of state in this category to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That someone has received an award may be evidence of their notability, but their notability still derives from something more tangible (being a royal, a diplomat, a military commander, an actor...) and that's a better categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Miklós Horthy, that's totally ridicilous indeed. Thanks for mentioning this example. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 16 May 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:Romanian timelines

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: relisted at June 18, as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, its content is already in Category:Romanian history timelines‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 14 May 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:Montenegrin metropolitans

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. MER-C 06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, there is no need to subcategorize bishops by their nationality if their nationality coincides with the location of their diocese. An earlier discussion resulted in 'no consensus', the issue of that discussion has meanwhile been resolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 14 May 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:Anatolian Christian Universalists

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 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and hardly any room for expansion because Universalism only grew after Anatolia had been occupied by the Ottomans. No need to upmerge because the one article is already in Category:4th-century Christian Universalists as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 14 May 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:Women historians

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per this earlier started discussion about Male historians which is still open. The discussion in the Male historians nomination is strongly interlinked with this category so it would be most helpful to add your comments about Women historians in the earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective is a complete red herring here. These are by gender categories. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources have indicated that "women historians" are a concept they find notable, and there are real-world groups that fit into this category. That's why we make categories in the first place. I don't much care about academic politics, and I'm content to remain ignorant on the nature of the dispute. My job is to locate reliable sources, and that's what I've done. An academic paper on women historians would seem to indicate that this category is warranted. If you think this academic paper is irrelevant, I would welcome your input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our wise editors have already observed on WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed enough attention given to women professionals of all kinds because they are still a minority in most disciplines. If we say, we should also give similar attention for the same reason, I would say we are trying to bring real world into Wikipedia world. We are not a public policy organisation, or a managerial organisation or anything like that. So, it is not our job to do this. The existence of women's professional organisations merely gives us license to categorize all such organisations, but not necessarily their members into separate categories. If I am a member of the Southeast Regional Natural History association, that doesn't mean I have now gotten into a separate category called "Southeast Regional Natural Historians." If there is a book about women historians which identifies particular individuals as having "women historian" as a defining characteristic, then we have a license to place those people in a women historians category. But the existence of the book doesn't prove that every woman who is a historian has acquired a new defining characteristic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 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:Christian pilgrim saints

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article containing a saint whose pilgrimage is hardly a defining characteristic. Theoretically I can imagine this category could be further populated instead of deleted, but there are a lot of saints categories already, so let's just delete this one as it doesn't seem of interest to a lot of editors anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the category does have limited entries at present, as you indicate there is potential for growth, as this was a significant step in Christendom for centuries. Let's see what your suggestion might stir up. Daniel the Monk (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't expect too much of it, but if you do find pilgrim saints like that, who could populate this category, please categorize them and inform us here about the result of your search. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 18 May 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:Biblical Roman Catholic saints

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:Christian saints from the New Testament. MER-C 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Biblical Roman Catholic saints to Category:Biblical saints
Nominator's rationale: rename. There is no indication that these saints are exclusively venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. After renaming, a number of 1st-century Christian saints can be categorised in this biblical category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 14 May 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:Equal-to-apostles

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 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. "Equal-to-the-Apostles" is an honorific title accorded to some Christian saints, whose outstanding service in the spreading and assertion of Christianity is considered comparable to that of the original Twelve Apostles. I don't think that an honorific title like this is a defining characteristic. Listification has already taken place in the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 14 May 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:Multiple-use names

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) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed. After I created this I found that 'Category:Anonymity pseudonyms' already exists and does the same job. filceolaire (talk) 09:27, 14 May 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:Universal Humanism

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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no main article and it seems like the inclusion criteria are almost random. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 14 May 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 roads in the Balkans

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. MER-C 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION. The current Category:Roman roads tree is already a confusing mish-mash of subcategories by 1) modern national boundaries, 2) ancient Roman provincial ones and, possibly, 3) continents. This category adds a fourth layer by region, and a region that was defined much later by the Ottomans at that. This added layer would be more likely to hinder navigation than aid it. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 14 May 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