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) 02:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:College rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated, difficult to define. Also problematic: Category:College rock albums, Category:College rock groups Fuddle (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuddle: How is this more problematic than alternative rock or indie rock? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete. As the article says, "College rock was the alternative rock music played on student-run university and college stations" So unlike Reggae, Alternative, Indie, Chicago Blues etc it is not a genre of music. Do we need a category scheme per what is played on radio? I think not, but am happy not to say "delete" at this stage in case I have missed something. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Changed to delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a demonstrated genre of music, seems purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 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) 02:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wolf 359 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Following on from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 5 deletions of Sirius, Rigel, Epsilon Eridani, and Proxima Centauri, delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles. Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category: Altair
• Propose deleting Category: Deneb
• Propose deleting Category: Antares
• Propose deleting Category: Arcturus
• Propose deleting Category: Fomalhaut
• Propose deleting Category: Betelgeuse

• Comment All categories are sparcely populated but have populated subcategories. Is there a chance to merge them? Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here about the merge idea. The parent category would be an individual star. And the subcategory is a list of fiction articles that reference that star. So now you have no category about fictional references, and a category about the star itself which contains only a list of fiction articles that happens to make a passing reference to the star. I don't think it is a good idea, it just makes it harder for people to find what they are looking for. Lithopsian (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual merge to selected parent categories where appropriate, then delete. – Fayenatic London 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: content of categories is already linked in the parent article and thus these are not a useful aid to navigation. The categories are unlikely to be expanded in the near future. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the fiction categories are already properly parented at Category: stars in fiction -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 26 September 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) 07:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Augsburg to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Augsburg
• Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Bamberg to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Bamberg
• Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Cologne to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Cologne
• Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Constance to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Constance

Nominator's rationale: rename in order to disambiguate Roman Catholic bishops in Germany from Lutheran bishops in Germany. The undesirable result of the current ambiguity is for example that Category:Lutheran Prince-Bishops of Minden cannot be found in Category:Bishops of Minden. After renaming we can - in this example - recreate Category:Bishops of Minden as a parent of the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran category. (Note: this is what I've already started to do for Osnabrück, therefore Osnabrück is not part of the nomination.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per parent Category:Roman Catholic bishops. Oculi (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename temporarily If this proposal goes ahead, immediately recreate all categories. They should be reserved for all pre-reformation bishops (apart from the 2 sub-categories of course) to avoid either denomination claiming ownership of such bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unnecessary disambiguation, not usually referred to as "Roman Catholic bishops of XXX", compare also Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy. Support for Minden only. —Kusma (t·c) 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note thar Minden was just an example. Also please note that Germany and Italy are incomparable countries in this respect: Germany is equally Protestant as Roman Catholic while Italy is almost wholly Roman Catholic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protestant Bishops are called Bishops just like Roman Catholic ones are. I see no need to rename Category:Bishops of Hamburg either. —Kusma (t·c) 06:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In countries with bishops of multiple churches it is perfectly valid to subcategorize them by church, see e.g. Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In Germany, cities with bishops of different denominations are quite rare, and so disambiguating them (especially the pre-Reformation ones) is unnecessary and against the "common name" principle. Most regions of Germany were traditionally wholly Catholic or wholly Protestant. —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that both churches' bishoprics currently cover all of Germany, so there is e.g. a Lutheran bishop in Munich and a Roman Catholic bishop in Magdeburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selectively keep -- Except there were both Lutheran and RC bishoprics for the same see, there is no need to add the disambiguator RC. An appropriate comparator might be GB, where bishops are not called Anglican bishops, except where Bishop of foo is ambiguous. When a RC hierarchy was reintroduced to GB in the mid-19th, the Catholics were careful to chose titles taken from places with no Anglican bishop, but subsequent Anglican creations have upset that scheme. For dioceses that became protestant at the Reformation or were subsequently secularised, I see no objection to them being categorised as German bishops, which would in turn be a subcat of Catholic bishops, even though that ceased to be correct at the Reformation. The category system inevitably involves such (apparent) contradictions, unless we fragment everything to an extent that we in fact deplore. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination mainly aims solving the situation that Protestant and Roman Catholic bishops share the same see. The fact that all RC have been nominated is for consistency: it would be confusing if one bishopric category has an RC suffix and the other not. Previously I pointed to the category structure in the United States, which is entirely unambiguous and consistent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this logic. The same applies in Ireland where there were parallel successions in the RC church and the Church of of Ireland. See Category:Bishops of Clogher which is mainly a container for the sub-categories by both denominations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per Bishop (disambiguation). Use of the word bishop without some modifier for clarity is ambiguous. I'm interested in how the nom intends to handle categorising bishops of the early Christian church. - jc37 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Due to the large number of Christian Churches that use the tile bishop, some such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and various Pentacostal Denominations, for local leaders, bishops should always be clearly designated as to what denomination they belong to. Any other course of action is a POV move that assumes that Lutherans, Roman Catholics and a few other denominations that claim Apostolic succession have a better right to use of such terms, a POV that directly contradicts the truth claims of some other Christian groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest the creation of seperate categories for bishops before the Lutheran reformation. I would accept the placement of such categories as sub-categories of categories for Roman Catholic Bishops, if there is also a relevant category for post-Reformation Catholic bishops of that diocese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 16 October 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. It's unclear what the goal is here as the nominator is for creation of categories (based on I presume a split of something else). It seems as though two editors in the end (@Fayenatic london and Peterkingiron:) agreed on something but I'm not seeing a full consensus for that anywhere here and I suggest that a new CFD with a more clear proposal be conducted instead to describe the intended split. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context that I am looking to create:

Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom under the PR voting system (from 1999) which could be titled

Category:European Parliament constituencies in the UK under the PR voting system (from 1999)

and which would contain a limited content:

• Category:East Midlands (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:East of England (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:London (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:North East England (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:North West England (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:Scotland (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:South East England (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:South West England (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:Wales (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:West Midlands (European Parliament constituency),
• Category:Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)

and in the further context that I am looking to populate these categories category content such as:

• Category:Current MEPs for the East Midlands constituency of the European Parliament
• Category:Previous MEPs for the East Midlands constituency of the European Parliament

I am wondering whether or not it would be beneficial to make the moves:

Category:European Parliament constituencies in England → Category:European Parliament constituencies in England under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland‎ → Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland‎ under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)

Category:European Parliament constituencies in Wales‎ → Category:European Parliament constituencies in Wales‎ under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)

At present I do not think that readers (or editors) will necessarily be able to easily navigate the categories due to the very great number of historic articles relating to the pre 2000 system with the numbers of articles being involved being represented in the content of the following templates:

((European Parliament constituencies 2014–2019)) ((European Parliament constituencies 2009–2014)) ((European Parliament constituencies 2004–2009)) ((European Parliament constituencies 1999–2004)) ((European Parliament constituencies 1994–1999)) ((European Parliament constituencies 1989–1994)) ((European Parliament constituencies 1984–1989)) ((European Parliament constituencies 1979–1984))

I would like to develop a content at: European Parliament constituencies in the UK under the PR voting system (from 1999)

In these cases the "Previous.." categories could contain a see also link which could direct to an appropriate version of "Category:European Parliament constituencies in ....‎ under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)"

Also, each version of version of "Category:European Parliament constituencies in ....‎ under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)" could contain a see also link to Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom under the PR voting system (from 1999)

At present I think that category contents are not self explanatory and are far from intuitive.

GregKaye 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Better explanation needed These are all constituencies, which have/had MEPs. How they were voted in is irrelevant; they have all been voted in using the then current voting process (which can be explained elsewhere). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I agree with Twiceuponatime that the voting system is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the constituencies changed in 1999 (became much larger). What is the objection to a split such as Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom (pre-1999) and Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom (post-1999)? Oculi (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go along with that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Split existing categories -- The move in 1999 from FPTP to PR inevitably meant that all the old constituencies were abolished. It would therefore be appropriate to have separate Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom 1974-99 and Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom 1999 on. The fact that the first is a FPTP and the second PR can conveniently be dealt with in a head note. I am not clear what the correct start date for the first one is and this may need correcting. Placing the full explanation in the title, creates over-long category names: there is much merit in keeping them short. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest creating sub-cats named by date range, e.g. under Category:European Parliament constituencies in England there could be Category:European Parliament constituencies in England (1979–99) and Category:European Parliament constituencies in England (1999–). Above that, do the same for UK. This recognises that there was a significant discontinuity before and after 1999. It is not necessary to state the electoral systems in the category names. As for the proposed "current" and "former", we do not split categories for office holders that way. We have Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom by term and its sub-cats would fit into the new UK sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is apparent consensus about the general idea on how to proceed with this nomination. Support @Fayenatic london:, who offered the best execution of this idea. Though I suspect the starting year should be 1974 instead of 1979 per @Peterkingiron:, i.e. Category:European Parliament constituencies in England (1974–99) and Category:European Parliament constituencies in England (1999–). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Marcocapelle. European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom says that UK MEPs were initially nominated by Parliament; we have a list for 1973–79, but it is not organised by constituency, so I think my suggestion stands. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With the change in the electoral method in 1999, we need a new category Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom 1999 on. We do not need to split this by home nation, because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are each single constituencies. For the preceding period we need Category:European Parliament constituencies in England (1979–99) and equivalents for the other home nations, except Northern Ireland, which was a single constituency and should be directly in the UK parent. Anything else currently existing should be merged in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron as Category:European Parliament constituencies in England exists as part of the England hierarchy, I remain of the view that it should be sub-catted separately for the periods before and after 1999. Likewise, there is Category:European Parliament constituencies in Scotland (etc), which will only need a new sub-cat for 1979–99. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had not thought too hard about parenting. I agree that we do not need a post-1999 Scotland category, since Scotland is a single constituency. However, I wonder whether they all cannot be parented by one UK category, holding a Northern Ireland article (or two), three pre-1999 categories for the other three home countries, one post-1999 England category and two post-1999 articles for Scotland and Wales. That is at most eight items, which is far from excessive for one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Peterkingiron: Yes, I think we agree. Category:European Parliament constituencies in England, which is a sub-cat of Category:Constituencies in England, should get two new sub-cats. The other countries only need a new sub-cat for 1979–99.
      • The existing England, Scotland and Wales categories should not be renamed, but kept within Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom, with new UK-level siblings Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom (1979–99) and Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom (1999–) (or similar names). – Fayenatic London 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed -- I think that would be a satisfactory outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pardon me for not reading user:Oculi's earlier suggestion properly. This is the same structure, just a slightly different name. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 29 November 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) 07:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a school/college (e.g. Amherst College or Dartmouth College) is a member of this association is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. According to the article about the association "NEASC accredits more than 2000 public and independent schools, colleges and universities...". Example of similar previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_15#Category:Christian_College_Consortium. DexDor ^(talk) 06:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for Now This category was poorly categorized, but it is one of the Regional accreditation bodies where the US government approves student loans for colleges and, typically, you can only easily transfer credits between regionally accredited schools (national accreditation is seen as inferior) and many states only recognize degrees for regulated industries from one of these schools. This may still be non-defining, but it comes a heck of lot closer than the CCC which is basically an industry trade group. I would favor opening a larger nomination of the Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I am sure that the association is a worthy and important body, but that does not mean that every college accredited by it (or member of it) needs a category. We have deleted a lot of such "university association membership" categories. No objection to listifying, if thought useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being part of this group is only temporarily defining. First off, because many of these organizations pre-date the formation of the Accredadation council in question. Then there is the fact others may have existed for several years while the accrediting body existed and not been members. Also, due to the rules of categorization, if a member organization looses accredadation, we would still need to leave it in the category. A list can better cover when and under what status organizations were covered. I would also point out that transfering credit between regionally accredited schools is not gauranteed. I transfered between two not only regionally accredited schools but top-tier research universities and still had some credits declined. Here in Michigan there is a set of agreements to make transfering between colleges and universities in the state easier, but the institutions are part of an accredadation group that covers many more states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 16 October 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. (To summarise, this deletion has left us with Category:Lists of things named after Taras Shevchenko and Category:Things named after Taras Shevchenko. A follow-up nomination for those might be appropriate here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Organizations named after Taras Shevchenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Populated places named after Taras Shevchenko
• Propose deleting Category:Districts named after Taras Shevchenko

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain articles about a range of things that have in common the etymology of their name (or one of their names). Examples: Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus, University of Luhansk, National Opera of Ukraine. For info: This may be appropriate for a list (e.g. at Taras Shevchenko's legacy or on a separate list page). Similar categories have been deleted in the past (some examples). DexDor ^(talk) 05:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Unless I'm missing something, we have a Category:Queen Victoria, but no Category:Populated places named after Queen Victoria, etc. Essentially, I think the rationale behind similar categories being deleted is that they are simply too obscure to be of merit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's a useful set of categories that testifies to the significance of a historical figure. But if one is to go so far as to say that we should not have any categories of things named after people, we would need to remove such categories as Category:Asteroids named for people as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)--Sanya3 (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per WP:SHAREDNAME. Not defining. Oculi (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per WP:SHAREDNAME. We don't have a single other person with this form of categorization. I would also favor deleting Category:Lists of things named after Taras Shevchenko and upmerging what's left of Category:Things named after Taras Shevchenko to Taras Shevchenko. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify if they already appear at the legacy article, then straight delete. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- RevelationDirect has put forward a good outcome, which I would support. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Stalin precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Being named for Historical Figure X is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the things so named — accordingly, this type of information should be handled as a list rather than a category. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 1 October 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cultural history of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant subcat. Already thoroughly covered by Category:Russian culture and Category:Cultural history Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Many countries have a 'cultural history' category, see Category:Cultural history by country. I suppose that nearly everything in Category:Russian culture that is not about current Russian culture can be put in the nominated category. I've started populating the category with two articles for the time being. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've seen it and it doesn't particularly make any sense. Ethnic culture is embedded in a history, so how do you propose to separate 'current' culture in any country's culture from 'historic' culture? What is meant by 'current culture' in any given nation-state? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that culture in general (as a concept) is embedded in history, but many articles are about particular manifestations of culture, which are either still ongoing or concluded in the past (i.e. history in the latter case). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's actually known as 'history' and slots comfortably into 'History of [insert relevant subject here]". Anything 'finished' fits neatly into the 'Cultural history' category. Please tell me what subjects belong in a 'current culture of Russia' category. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we mean the same but I'm not sure. I meant: ongoing culture should be in Category:Russian culture and concluded culture should go in Category:Cultural history of Russia.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. BTW, why did you remove "List of cultural icons of Russia" and the category "Russian traditions" from this category? The parent category has many different countries in it, and I think that Russia should belong in it also. A good series of articles from the University of London that explains what "Cultural history" means is here, and how it is different than just "History" and "Culture". They explain it way better than I ever could. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pointing to a single essay discussing a complex field as if it were an absolute academic mainstream definition? You're reducing the argument to WP:OR. As regards the removal from those articles, you're welcome to reinstate them once it's been established that this form of nomenclature for categories actually makes sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that Russia should not have its own category under "Cultural history by country"? I don't agree that whatever relates to Russia should just be categorized under the general "Cultural history" category. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point of what I'm arguing: being that I consider "Category:Cultural history of [name of country inserted here]" as being a strange category, full stop. When I find a moment, I'm going to submit this category convention for discussion. I have no objections to such a category for Russia, per se, as it is being used for other countries/nation-states. I simply see the entire category structure as being overkill. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that "Cultural history of Russia" is the same thing as "Russian culture"? And that the "Cultural history" category should just have everything from every country in there? Funandtrvl (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Iryna Harpy on this topic, and in particular this comment. Merge or delete depending on if there are any outlying articles. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no outlying articles. The category has only just been created. It was merely beginning to used to substitute the "Russian culture" cat in on a couple articles (which I reverted, then brought it here to discuss). Therefore, in answer to Funandtrvl, that's essentially what I'm saying: it's merely a complicated convolution of a pre-existing category. Creating a number of varients on a fundamental category and populating them is excessive. How many different ways of saying the same thing is useful or informative? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to have the parent category be "[[Nationality] cultural history]"? Such that instead of "Cultural history of Russia", to change it to "Russian cultural history", and that being a sub-category of "History of Russia" and "Russian culture"? Funandtrvl (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Russian culture. I do not think there is any content that could not be placed in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 27 September 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.