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 06:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Converted Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We do not normally categorize airlines by how they were formed. If kept this should have inclusion criteria, have parent categories and be renamed to "Converted airlines" (or something more explanatory). DexDor ^(talk) 19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unknown inclusion criteria -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Looking at the two members I cannot figure what the inclusion criterion is either. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I also connot work out how they are "converted". The two articles are already in appropriate Russian airline categories, so that no merge is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per User:Mangoe.Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 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.

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 06:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nanotechnology selected images to Category:Nanotechnology portal selected pictures

Nominator's rationale: This is one of very few categories under Category:Portals that does not have the word "portal" in its name. Consistency with categories such as Category:Birds portal selected pictures. DexDor ^(talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm the creator and maintainer of this category. I see no reason in this case not to be consistent with other similar categories. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:18, 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.

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts to Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts

Nominator's rationale: This gendered category is the final rung on the category, which serves to either ghettoise the women (contrary to WP:CATGRS) or require duplicate categorisation to avoid that (which causes category clutter).
I am not aware of any evidence that female FRSAs are a notable topic of academic enquiry, so I see no reason for this category to be kept. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As creator of the category, I do not object, given @BrownHairedGirl's rationale. I do not wish to "ghettoise the women" in any way. I think, if memory serves, that I created it in response to similarly named categories which were then in vogue. Quis separabit? 17:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't quite understand the rationale for deletion. The sub-section shows clearly in the main section heading and the category is 'of interest' without being demeaning, on a par with 'female Prime Ministers'.Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pincrete: did you read WP:CATGRS, to which I linked in the nomination?
    It says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read, however I took the attitude that RSA Fellows were more akin to 'female Prime Ministers'. Solving the (technical) problem of them being also listed independent of gender, is something I have no knowledge/opinion of/about. I think there is little evidence that ANY RSA fellows are the subject of study AS SUCH, (ie not according to their individual work or achievements).Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: with all due respect to the women FRSAs, being an FRSA is several orders of magnitude less notable than being a prime minister. And if they aren't a subject of study AS SUCH, then the long-standing guidance is that we shouldn't have a category for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably less notable than PMs, but still fairly notable. This IS regarded in the UK as a very high honour among those active in academia etc. My point about the lack of study of FRSA's AS SUCH, was that neither male nor female FRSAs are often studied as a category, since they are from such diverse disciplines. Therefore even the gender-neutral category proposed, is 'of interest', rather than being 'of importance' as a topic of study. The gender-specific category should be judged on the same terms.

I think that 'ghettoisation' is the central issue, about which I don't have a clear opinion either way.Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The last rung problem is the major one we need to avoid. If we consitently avoided it, the issues of separation on gender would not be that big. Until people are marching in front of the Detroit Public Schools' Detroit International Academy, a public school for only girls, protesting the existence of such, I find the use of "ghetoizing" disingenuous in Wikipedia discussions. We are talking about articles, and should avoid such inflamatory language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that I was quoting 'ghettoisation' (marginalisation would have been less emotive). My point being that this IS the central issue,(along with technical issues) since FRSAs (male or female) are not the subject of study.Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a fairly obvious application of WP:CATGRS. Neutrality^talk 22:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I generally support the presence of gendered categories because gender is such a defining characteristic but I don't think one can argue with the rationale BrownHairedGirl provides in this case for a merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:35, 31 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.

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, inappropriate name. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islam in Russia work group articles by quality to Category:Islam in Russia portal

Nominator's rationale: The 2 pages currently in this category are in Portal namespace. The parent category is a portal category, yet this category is not named as a portal category. DexDor ^(talk) 17:30, 15 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.

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/delete as specified. MER-C 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:9th century BC

• Propose merging Category:800 BC to Category:800s BC
• Propose merging Category:800 BC deaths to Category:800s BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:802 BC births to Category:800s BC and Category:9th-century BC births
• Propose merging Category:804 BC deaths to Category:800s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. Merge the first ~40 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into "general decade" categories, "deaths by decade" and "by topic/location by century" categories.

New in this nomination, compared to this earlier nomination and the nomination below, is the fact that there is sufficient content to keep the deaths by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all -- The use of decade categories provides an appropriate level of categorisation. Keep Up the good work! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 15 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.

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/delete as specified. MER-C 06:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:10th century BC

• Propose merging Category:900 BC deaths to Category:900s BC and Category:10th-century BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:900s BC deaths to Category:900s BC and Category:10th-century BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:909 BC crimes to Category:900s BC and Category:10th-century BC crimes

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. Merge the first ~20 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into "general decade" categories and "by topic/location by century" categories and is very similar to this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all -- The use of decade categories provides an appropriate level of categorisation. Keep Up the good work! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 15 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.

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 to delete, therefore rename to something. "Railway" is not sufficiently specific, as the contents are rolling stock rather than e.g. track or signalling, so I will rename this to Category:Rolling stock innovations, without prejudice to a further discussion. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Historical innovative rolling stock to Category:Rolling stock

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT x 2. This groups awesome railroad equipment based on two subjective terms. Since this articles was first created, an editor questioned the inclusion criteria on the talk page. While I personally think everything here fits both adjectives, that's nothing more than my personal opinion and other editors will disagree. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Ulamm as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Trains. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, some articles (not all, so purging is needed) mention "this was the first ..." and that's not subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with inclusion criteria clearly drafted on the talk: page, including the level of sourcing required, and a precis on the category page.

We are not so stupid that we can't define and make use of a sub-category. This has a clear value in terms of its usefulness and although poorly defined categories are a problem, the fix for that is to define them, not to delete them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I was assuming this category was inherently subjective but I'm open to salvaging it. What would the objective inclusion criteria be? Would this involve a rename?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's scope for "innovative" rolling stock, where each member demonstrates some novel feature (either first example, or first example in substantial commercial use). So the first continuous brakes, bogies, gas lighting rather than oil, tilting APTs and Pendolinos. Mostly though (and what isn't happening at present) the articles would have to clearly state what this was.

There is an argument that it should be a list instead, but the trouble with that is that categories get produced (and usually work), the list articles don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and repurpose as Category:Railway innovations, purging anything that does not fit that into Category:Rolling Stock. Some one will need to draft a neadnote for the revised category to ensure that it has tightly defined inclusion criteria. At worst we should rename to drop the word "historical". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?? If it's innovative, does it go in? Do signals and block instruments belong? Because if they don't (as they're not rolling stock), then leave the name as "innovative rolling stock". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (subjective). We have a more precise category structure (e.g. Category:Diesel multiple units of Germany). An article such as History of rolling stock (currently a redlink) could (where appropriate) refer to specific innovative types of rolling stock. DexDor ^(talk) 18:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you even mean? "DMUs" is almost orthogonal to "innovative". Why would you think one precludes the other? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRG Class SVT 877 is, according to the current categorization, a historically innovative DMU. If, for a particular topic, we have a good categorization scheme (clear inclusion criteria, comprehensive) (e.g. by type/nationality) then extra categories such as this one are of little benefit (remembering that any information in the category could/should be in an article/list) and risk causing problems such as articles being placed in this category instead of in the comprehensive category scheme (and editors disagreeing over whether a particular article belongs in the innovative category or not). DexDor ^(talk) 04:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's historically innovative, but that's not conveyed by its categorization as a DMU. Nor, in fact, is it a DMU (it's a diesel railcar set, but it can't work in multiple). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. This is the sort of concept much better handled by lists, which can explain exactly why each entry is considered innovatove, and justify inclusoion with references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think that this is too subjective; the title does not reflect any clear inclusion criteria (the fact that there may be some clear inclusion criteria outlined elsewhere does not help much). Neutrality^talk 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have to admit that establishing that category I failed to explain the citeria of entry. But now I've added them. You can see that now an objective definition is available.

Of course, all items categorized here are also listed in other subcategories of Category:Rolling stock.

I think, a collection of all important steps in the development of rolling stock is necessary. --Ulamm (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Inclusion Criteria Here is the description that Ulamm added to the category page as the creator: RevelationDirect (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This category is desired for

• railway vehicles, which any certain technique has been applied for the first time,
• rolling stock, in which any certain technique has been applied before it has come to general use,
• the first large series, in which a certain technique has been applied."

• Comment I know nothing about railway vehicles so my comment is about semantics. Now that we have a category guideline for inclusion (above), could this category be renamed to Category:Historical rolling stock, Category:Innovative rolling stock or Category:Railway innovations? "Historical innovative" is a terrible qualifier for a category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:53, 31 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.

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 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging Category:Historical people of Thessaloniki to Category:People from Thessaloniki

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I'm honestly not quite sure what the intent of this subcategory is and the editor is inactive so I can't ask. Whatever the intent, this redundant layer doesn't aid navigation nor is it clear which residents count as "historical" and which don't. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia Greece. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this is an unclear distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have removed one page which was in a sub-cat already. There is no need to merge to the other head category as the sub-cats are included in that hierarchy through other routes. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In the end, everyone is historical :) SFB 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that everyone is historical. Dimadick (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Even if we could come up with a clear distinct, such as people who acted notably in Thessaloniki before its annexation in 1912 into Greece, it is not clear it would be more than arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 19 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.

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:Historic roads in Turkey, without prejudice to further discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Downmerging Category:Historic trails and roads in Turkey to Category:Roman roads in Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Both of the articles in this category are already well categorized in Category:Roman roads in Turkey which describes why they are historic. I also have broader concerns that "historical" is a subjective standard. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Hugo999 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I nominated another Roman road related category yesterday and your thoughts (pro/con/other) are welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 14#Category:Roman roads in the Balkans. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support by lack of non-Roman content. I wouldn't object recreating the category (as a parent category) if articles about ancient Greek or medieval roads would be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• After the discussion below my Support vote changed into Rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Historic roads in Turkey. "Trails" is an inappropriate Americanism. I have a recollection of literary references to a Great Road or King's Road of the Perian kings, possibly in Herodotus or Xenophon, which woudl have led through Anatolia. I expect that we have a WP article on that, but I cannot find it, perhaps becasue I cannot think of the precise name for it. An alternative might be Category:Historic roads in Anatolia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The ancient Persian highway is the Royal Road to which I added the nominated category. I'm happy to go with the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 17 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.

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 06:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Historical cities and towns in Russia

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (but not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT). This is an official Soviet-era heritage register so there's no issue of subjectivity. The problem is that, rather than listing historic districts, it lists entire cities. And we're not talking Colonial Williamsburg type places but Moscow, St. Petersburg and 400+ other cities. The article is fine so I listified the current contents but it doesn't aid navigation as a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Altenmann as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, while 'historical' is defining for Novgorod it's not or less so for the other cities in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The eponymous article should be upmerged. If kept this should be purged of subcategories. DexDor ^(talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added those categories to the main article, which is helpful regardless of this nomination. Also reached out to Ezhiki to make further improvements to the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Better dealt with as a list where the context of the heritage register can be properly explained. I feel that is needed, particularly as the Soviet Union is no longer extant. SFB 17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per WP:NONDEFINING, [a] defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define (in prose, as opposed to tabular or list form) the subject as having.... First off, please note that the term "historical" in the category title is used in a very specific sense, not as a generic description (but I see that the nominator is not claiming it to be subjective anyway). And while the "list form" (the official government list of cities having such a designation) is the primary foundation on which this category is built, it should be pretty obvious that a plethora of secondary sources can be found supporting the statement that each and every city in this list is indeed historical (in either official, or generic sense). In short, I am not convinced that NONDEFINING applies here.
  This said, the category title could probably be tweaked to make it more clear that the inclusion is indeed not subjective but according to a very specific criterion. Potentially confusing use of "historical" aside, this category is not very different from, say, Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union or Category:Cities of Military Glory.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2015; 20:49 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DexDor ^(talk) 05:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for snotty abbreviations to be thrown around. I'm not saying this category should be kept merely because "other stuff exists". I'm saying it should be kept because other, similar, stuff exists for good reasons, and those good reasons apply here as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2015; 12:16 (UTC)

• Delete This is an awards cat for cities (with the added problem of having a name that sounds like something else). It does not pass the high bar for keeping awards cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 19 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.