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 without prejudice in case it is needed again as part of Category:Zones of Indian Railways. – Fayenatic London 05:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Konkan Railway Zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Existence of Category:Konkan Railway. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - as empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 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: purge, no consensus about deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about prison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redirect to Category:Prison music (or make subcat?). I created 'Songs about prison'-- I didn't see the existing one Fuddle (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy. Creator's request to delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thank you, Fuddle, for submitting this for review. However, I find it a useful addition to the structure, and have re-jigged the parents of this and Prison music. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: if not kept, this should be upmerged to prison music, as I have moved some other songs down into the new category. – Fayenatic London
  • Nominator's followup: I like this. There is now a clear difference between 'songs' and 'music'.
• Comment. "Prison music" sounds like the music is made in prison.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of it was – albums recorded there or songs written there. Other pages include musical topics other than songs, e.g. operatic works about prison. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked this category when it was first nominated and noted that the first two songs were prison-related. I now check and note that somebody has added a bunch of redirects into the category because they use the word "prison" or name check a prison. I checked the target article and did not find any confirmation that the two I looked at were actually "about prison." The songwriter may have used allegory, parable or some other literary device. As somebody once said, "we are all prisoners here, of our own device" The point of a category is to list "defining characteristics." This has been downgraded to mentioning a specific word in the title. Hardly defining, eh? Here's a bunch of "songs about" that have been to CfD and the results:-

At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.

Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics.

--Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Richhoncho. Neutrality^talk 01:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richhoncho: @Neutrality: I think that's unfair in his case. I have expanded the contents of the category, but mostly not as described above. The contents are mostly articles, not redirects. I excluded several songs with "prison" (jail, breakout...) in the title where the use seemed to be metaphorical. The new contents include many songs with definite prison-related content without mentioning the word in he title, e.g. The Auld Triangle, Biko (song), George Jackson (song), Percy's Song, Rubber Bullets. I'm happy to remove any redirects containing "prison" for which there is little evidence about the theme. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london:. Have a look then at Percy's Song. It's about friendship, car crashes, harsh judgments, the fact that somebody is in prison is almost negligible as far as the song is concerned. Yet it is now "a song about prison." Rubber Bullets is pure hokum and doesn't belong in this category (or should it be in the "songs about dancing" category?. In the words of the opening stanza of Jailbreak (Thin Lizzy song), "Tonight there's gonna be a jailbreak somewhere in this town," yes, even though nobody in the town knows where the jail is, it's not going to escape this category! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: – thank you very much for your detailed work on this. OK, I can see that even after pruning the category, it is liable to be misused in the future. I propose at least to build on your work to make a list of justifiable content. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please not a list... Songs and their relationship with prison is a good starting point for a scholarly article - If I had all my old books I might have even started in myself. Think of the "chain gang" songs, the Lomaxes recording in prison, Lead Belly being given early release from prison because of his performances. An editor with more patience and skill than I can create a wonderful article. And a list of examples to complement the article ...--Richhoncho (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - just about to create a new article that will go in here. Prison is hugely notable, and there are some famous songs written about it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:20, 16 June 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:Police misconduct in fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional corrupted law enforcements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete - another in a series of categories and articles created by the same user that are up for deletion. Category title is ungrammatical; category itself is also rather subjective and nondefining. Note that many of the characters listed in this category are not "law enforcement" characters at all, but instead are attorneys or political characters. Neutrality^talk 22:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category title is mistaken. It is a subcategory of Fictional law enforcement agents. Also the definition given for "Law enforcements" which is an improper term anyway includes "police officers, lawyers, court of laws". Lawyers have nothing to do with law enforcement and the only judges I know of that are also cops are those from the Judge Dredd series. I would suggest renaming and redefining the category to include only law enforcement officers, and then only if corruption is actually part of the key traits of the character. We have an article defining Police corruption that can make the listing much less subjective. And the dirty cop seems to be a stock character in certain works of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into fictional corrupt lawyers, fictional corrupt police, fictional corrupt judges, etc. Though since an advocate's job is to present his client's case, I am not sure where corruption in lawyers comes in. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too fine a distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I'm in favour of a fictional corrupt police officers category. JJARichardson (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Police misconduct in fiction as subcategory of Category:Police misconduct. Further refine and diffuse as necessary. Corruption in Government and Law Enforcement are both common tropes and real world concerns. --100.32.136.225 (talk) 07:34, 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.

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: discussion merged, see below. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Oral pathology to Category:diseases of oral cavity, salivary glands and jaws

Nominator's rationale: Discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_19#Clarification_of_what_is_proposed Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:10, 24 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 10:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Cross of Liberty (Estonia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Collar of the Order of the White Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights of the Elephant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Knights of the Royal Order of the Seraphim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. There are mainly heads of state, nobility, ministers and generals in these categories to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I agree that these are not defining. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All, these are more honorific titles and gifts to people that are already notable for other reasons. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all we need to cut out award categories for awards that are not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 31 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: keep. MER-C 12:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chen (state)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. No need to upmerge, since all parent categories of this category are also parents of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's only temporarily smallcat. I've been meaning to create articles about the Chen rulers for a while, but there are just too many other articles to write (I've already written a few hundred articles about ancient Chinese rulers). Eventually the category will look like Category:Chu (state), Category:Qi (state), Category:Cai (state), and so on. -Zanhe (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can you write up some placeholder stubs so that the category no longer meets SMALLCAT? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, it's no problem deleting the category now and recreating it when you're ready to write articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- Unfortunately the main article is so brief that it is difficult to know ab out its merits, but it did exist for about 500 years, which is not trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for Now With no objection to recreating when Zanhe adds some articles, preferably not stubs. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - @Marcocapelle and RevelationDirect: I've created a dozen articles and added a few others to the category, which now contains 20 articles. There are many more articles to be written, see the red links in Template:Rulers of Chen (state). I'll write more when I have time. This category can potentially have 100 articles. As the original rationale of WP:SMALLCAT is no longer applicable, I think this nomination should be withdrawn. -Zanhe (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your efforts! Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 30 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 12:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Zionism documentary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a poorly worded attempt to create a category which would more typically be named Category:Documentary films critical of Zionism per Category:Books critical of Zionism. I believe there's been some pushback against "critical of..." documentary categories, though. And of course we do have both Category:Documentary films about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Category:Documentary films about the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unless there's a strong desire to keep and rename, I believe deletion is preferred. Zionism doesn't inherently mean supporting the occupation of what are currently Palestinian territories -- even if most Zionist do -- so the category's name is imprecise imho, based on its current contents. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but someone needfs to check that all articles have an appropriate category, such as Category:Documentary films about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I do not think we would like a Category:Pro-Palestinian documentary, which is what this would probably amount to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are only five articles in this category and they are all adequately categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 27 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. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:23rd-century BC conflicts to Category:3rd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:23rd century BC

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Keep up the good work on culling this miniscule ancient categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 26 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. MER-C 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:11th-century BC conflicts to Category:2nd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:11th century BC
• Propose upmerging Category:12th-century BC conflicts to Category:2nd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:12th century BC
• Propose upmerging Category:13th-century BC conflicts to Category:2nd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:13th century BC
• Propose upmerging Category:14th-century BC conflicts to Category:2nd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:14th century BC
• Propose upmerging Category:15th-century BC conflicts to Category:2nd-millennium BC conflicts and Category:15th century BC

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- too little content to be worth having a century split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 26 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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 21 after tagging WP Armenia on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 23:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Regions of old Armenia to Category:Historical regions of Great Armenia

Nominator's rationale: rename C2C to parents Category:Administrative divisions of Great Armenia and Category:Historical regions by country. I haven't nominated it for speedy, because the insertion of the word "Great" may be questionable. Note that other categories in Category:Historical regions by country do not have an insertion like that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Armenia has been notified of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Support or Category:Historical regions of greater Armenia, which might be better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not against the latter, but then the parent category should be renamed as well in a later nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 30 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chefs-de-Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Subject doesn't have an article. In fact, WikiProject Horseracing isn't sure what it refers to. ...William 10:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I created a redirect to dosage index, which explains it. There may be a few too many horses placed into the category, and I initially raised my eyebrows a bit, but the concept is legitimate. In fact, millions upon millions of dollars are spent on promising yearlings each fall based on this concept. Some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the research and work done by Montanabw. To clarify something WilliamJE neither Redrose64 or myself are members of the WikiProject Horseracing. We both went there to see if members of that project could tell us what the new category was about. Don't get me wrong, I know that you made this CFD in good faith. I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions. MarnetteD|Talk 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment @WilliamJE:, maybe just withdraw this CfD now that the confusion is cleared up? Montanabw^(talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Dosage Index racehorses per the spirit of WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. To a lay reader, this term is a little obscure and it doesn't match the naming of the main article, Dosage Index. No objection to renaming the article instead but the two should match. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename: The dosage index folks use "Chefs-de-Race" as a term of art to describe only certain horses. ALL Thoroughbreds have a "dosage" rating - for some it just sucks, that's all. We could create an article on Chefs de Race, but not sure it's needed - Dosage index covers it. Would a section heading ot link a redirect help though? Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I'm reluctant to rely on category headers because they're not viewed when using WP:HOTCAT. (Some editors share that concern; others do not.) Is there a less wordy way to say Category:Dosage Index Chefs-de-Race racehorses? Does that phrasing make sense?RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I fail to understand the concern - we have Category:saddles not Category:saddles that go on horses...? If it would fix matters to say Category:Chefs de Race stallions or something, that could be done. The horses in the category would, most likely, include these specific horses based on the definition here.

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:States and territories established in the 7th century BC, Category:7th century BC in Iran and Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Iran, following other recent CFD closures. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:7th-century BC establishments in Iran to Category:7th-century BC establishments in the Achaemenid Empire

Nominator's rationale: At the relevant time, this area was closer to the Achaemenid Empire . This was a part of the Persian Empire but that term seems to confusingly refer to all sorts of times in history. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• support - as I've argued earlier, and what is also true for this category, many of these catagories are completely anachronistic and do not reflect any realistic combination of categories. Note that Medes, the only item in this category, was disestablished in 549 BC (and hence part of Category:549_BC_disestablishments_in_Iran) and in its existence never was 'in' Iran (but rather in several countries, among which what is now Iran). For this far back, the situation is actually better represented by the cross-section of Category:Medes and Category:7th-century BC establishments. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, first of all, the Achaemenid Empire is the successor state of the Median Kingdom, so that makes this proposal anachronistic. Second, the Achaemenid Empire is actually Iran under the Achaemenid dynasty. Note that Iran as a country name / people name is very ancient (see Name of Iran), it's not anachronistic to use this as the category name at all. Since the Medes were an Iranian people, the current category name is the best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative: full merge per WP:SMALLCAT (because the category contains just a single entry) to Category:Establishments in Iran, Category:States and territories established in the 7th century BC and Category:7th century BC in Iran while deleting the intermediate Category:1st-millennium BC establishments in Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative 2: partial merge (also per WP:SMALLCAT) only to Category:States and territories established in the 7th century BC because the one article in the category, Medes, is in the tree of Category:Ancient history of Iran already, and the article is not specifically about the Median state, it is more generally about the Median people covering a much longer part of ancient Iranian history. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WikiProject Iran has been notified of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Get rid of this -- The question is what parents should Category:Medes have. The establishmnets and disestablishment trees are the subject of ongoing CFDs. The empire of the Medes covered a large part of the Middle East, including much of modern Turkey. The Iran establishments category will probably soon get merged to an Asian one. Probably Alternative 1. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 26 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.