March 1
Category:Aarakocra
- 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: speedy delete, blatant copyvio of [1]. BencherliteTalk 09:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Wrong namespace. There might be some material in the "category" to bring into Aarakocra, but this is effectively an article in category space. Plantdrew (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, it is very likely that this is WP:COPYVIO, with the entire contents taken directly from a game manual. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2016 (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.
Urdu1 series
- 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 and merge as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename and merge contents of nominated categories together. Duplicate categories, both of which are mis-named. The format for the subcategories of Category:Pakistani television programmes by channel is "FOO series". Adding "television" or "TV" is unnecessary because Urdu 1 is a television station. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2016 (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:Antiochian Greek Christians
- 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. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, no room for expansion because all articles will go into either one of the child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Christian groups in the ME are notable and important - so Antiochian, so are Maronite and so are Jacobite, etc etc.GreyShark (dibra) 22:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on this, but the nomination does not aim to discuss this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There's no reason to think all articles would go in only one of the subcategories. The Melkite category is anachronistic before 1724 and the Orthodox category is anachronistic before the Great Schism, so there's a thousand years of history that for NPOV reasons probably can't be split between the two subcategories.--Jahaza (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Article Antiochian Greek Christians explicitly says that Antiochian Greek Christians "are either members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or the Melkite Greek Catholic Church". If that definition is incorrect, then what are the inclusion criteria for the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification The main article, Antiochian Greek Christians also says "Arabic-speaking Christians from the Levant region". Is this really a linguistic/religious/regional intersection? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but that contradicts with User:Jahaza's remark that ancient Christians who lived before the Arabs conquered the region should also have a place in this category; they were Greek- or Aramean-speaking. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but tag as container only. All we have is a main article, two sub-cats, and one other article (Rum), which may well not belong. In the Middle East, Christian denominations are so entrenched that they operate as quasi-ethnicities. The reference to Antioch is that the patriarch there is the head of this branch of the Orthodox church. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main article, Antiochian Greek Christians, really needs to be improved to clarify this grouping. Do members have to speak Arabic? Can they move outside the Levant and still have descendents be included? The current inclusion criteria are not clear. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the article on Antiochian Greek Christians, the "Greek" part of the name refers to their use of Greek language in liturgy, not to their ethnic composition. The population statistics given in the article include residents of the United States, Australia, and Canada. Dimadick (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge. There are religious bodies whose members clearly fit this definition. There actually are people who are not ethnically connected to the middle east that fit under this definition. It means membership in the religious bodies involved, and while most of their members in Australia, the United States, Canada etc have some if not all Middle Eastern ancestry, they also include some non-0Middle Eastern converts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be honest, I think this article is based largely on original research or at least a recent revisionist ideology regarding Greek Orthodox and Catholic Christians, which implies that they're an ethnoreligious group rather than just a religious group/sect. This grouping supposedly includes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Catholic (Melkite) Church, but excludes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. I would think that Orthodox Christians in Damascus (who belong to the Antioch patriarchate) consider themselves closer to Orthodox Christians in Nazareth (who belong to the Jerusalem patriarchate) than with Greek Catholics in Zahle, Lebanon. In all my research about this region, the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox were somewhat rival denominations, with the former having split from the latter. Both of their patriarchs are based in Antioch, but they're two totally separate patriarchates. The article needs to be clarified and more importantly, it needs to be verified that this is not based on original research. Surely, if Antiochian Greek Christians are an ethnoreligious group defined as such, there would be plenty of material about them in scholarly sources. Until this article could be clarified/verified, it doesn't make sense to have a discussion about proper categorization, unless it would involve deletion. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2016 (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.
UTV (TV channel)
- 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. – Fayenatic London 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: UTV Media's TV assets were sold to ITV plc and has now been renamed Wireless Group, which consists of the company's remaining radio assets. The existing UTV Media category consists of mainly articles relating to the TV channel. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2016 (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:Monarch's Way
- 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) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category for long-distance footpath that only contains articles about places on the route, non-defining, similar to many deleted in discussions following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 17#Trail categories. Peter James (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2016 (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:Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail
- 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) 04:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category for trail that doesn't have a separate article. Many of the categorised articles are towns and villages on the trail and some do not mention it. Non-defining category similar to many deleted in discussions following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 17#Trail categories. Peter James (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - The Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail article is the defining article, it does exist (It had been created as Golden Pipeline project, but was basically about the heritage trail in the first place), the other point (reference to in the related articles) this has been corrected JarrahTree 23:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think that being on this trail is a defining characteristic of, for example, Kalgoorlie? DexDor (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea your actual knowledge of western australian geography or history or the original pipeline or the trail, but it was the destination - and it is very defining, it is where the pipeline and trail are going from here in Perth... Kalgoorlie would not have existed if it hadnt been for the pipeline, and the national trust created the trail to celebrate the 100 years of kalgoorlie being sustained by it JarrahTree 00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about Kalgoorlie doesn't use the words "Heritage" or "Trail" so being on the trail appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the town. See also essay WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that towns are not defined by being on a trail. Note: This might be suitable for a list. DexDor (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the defining features of the pipeline itself and the policy behind keeping the article are well-described by JarrahTree and Mitch Ames above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/Shift Scope to Category:Goldfields Water Supply Scheme with Goldfields Water Supply Scheme as the main article. Receiving water in the dessert to allow the creation of towns in the first place seems defining. Having special signage on Great Eastern Highway does not. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Since my proposal to shift the scope does not seem to be gaining traction, I would favor deleting over keeping as is.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Dex Dor - the pipeline, and the railway were the causes for most of the settlements to exist on the way to Kalgoorlie, they are part of the system that sustained the pipeline and the power stations and railway that serviced them. The trail is a celebration of that contribution or synergy between the different systems, and they are inherently part of the trail and the trail is a celebration of how the communities were railway, pipeline and Kalgoorlie related places.
- Reply to Revelation Direct - the goldfields water supply scheme and the golden pipeline heritage trail are separate for good reason, the great eastern highway and signage came long after the earlier systems, the railway/pipeline/pump stations sytem to get the water to kalgoorlie is kept separate on the basis that the scheme and its components is ultimately much more complex than the current article or category shows and is very explandable given the right contributions over time, the heritage trail is separate in that it is focused on a specific way of looking at the cultural landscape, rather than the details that are possible in the other category. JarrahTree 10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while I wouldn't have an objection against the category as such, it should at least be populated with articles about the trail (e.g. a list of people who walked the trail, an article about movies depicting the trail etc.). Currently it's just filled with articles about cities (and one dam). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've changed my mind about this. While I still think the pipeline and the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme are significant, and the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail notable enough for an article, I believe Peter James and DexDor are correct - being on the Trail is not a defining characteristic of the towns (most of the category's contents), which is the primary criteria for categorization. (Adding "It is located on the route of the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, and as a result is also on the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail" to the lead section does not make it a defining charactertic.) JarrahTree is of course invited to provide the reliable sources that commonly and consistently define the towns as being on the Trail.
- Even Mundaring Weir is not defined by being on the Trail; it is defined by being the beginning of the pipeline.
- A list of the towns would be appropriate, but I don't think a separate article is merited - I suggest expanding Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail#Trail sections to include all of the towns (e.g. along each section). See also Talk:Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail#Why 7 sections?.
- Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. If correctly titled it would be "Places on Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail", which is in the nature of a Performance category, something we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2016 (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:Toseiha
- 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) 18:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (that is in several other categories) and has no parent categories. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2016 (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:1747 establishments in Pakistan
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Pakistan did not exist in 1747 Tim! (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Let me just change up Durrani Empire to remove all the Pakistan/Afghanistan nonsense to Asia and db-author the categories. I think at that time I was using current locations not those that existed then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The other anachronisms have been removed. The entire structure of Category:1740s establishments in Pakistan and Category:18th-century establishments in Pakistan should be deleted as well (they will be empty for the most part). Note that in contrast, Category:18th-century establishments in India is extensive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Anachronistic and/or revisionist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - until the 20th century, what we now know as Pakistan was just an indistinguishable part of India. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My initial reaction was that the article should be in a category for India in 18th century, but perhaps that is not appropriate, since India at that period presumably refers to the Mughal Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Mughal Empire along with British, French and Portuguese India plus everything else that happened in all the little kingdoms and the like. I still wonder if we should have separate categories for current places and old ones but there's no support for that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Kerala
- 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 (the target did not exist at the time of closing). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The prefix "Indian" is redundant here. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Andhra Pradesh
- 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 (the target did not exist at the time of closing). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The prefix Indian is redundant here. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2016 (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:Songs about aircraft
- 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, so rename. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Songs about aircraft to Category:Songs about aviation
- Nominator's rationale: Not all of the songs in this category are about aircraft, some are about airports or other aviation-related topics. (L.A. International Airport for example). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a notable genre, and same problem that all the "about" categories have: how much about the subject must the song (in this case be), and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much. These all become WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. One could argue inclusion of Magic Carpet Ride (Steppenwolf song), Wind Beneath My Wings, American Pie, Africa (Toto song), Fire and Rain (song) (although the singer denies the association of the latter), Distant Early Warning (song), The Spirit of St. Louis (EP), Bomber (song), none of which are in the cat; and one could question the inclusion of many, e.g., 99 Luftballoons. Apparently mere mention of an airplane is sufficient inclusion criteria, but the mark is missed more than hit. Typical of these sorts of cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per all the reasons stated by Carlossuarez46. I note that one of the entries in the category is an instrumental, how is that about "aviation" or "aircraft?" Categories are supposed to be defining, but "songs about" relegates defining to mere mention without reference in the article, confirmation by third party and ignoring use of metaphor, allegory, parable and every other linguistic trick used. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: too vague and generally not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and withdraw nom.: Now, I know that WP:OTHER is not a sustainable argument, but one has to wonder why none of Category:Songs about buses, Category:Songs about automobiles, Category:Songs about bicycles or Category:Songs about trains is being nominated for moving or deletion. All the same arguments apply. There is no Category:Songs about bus journeys, Category:Songs about motoring, Category:Songs about cycling or Category:Songs about railways and none of these categories is being questioned. What we have here is a wrongly-focused proposal and a lot of unsupported editorial opinion, most of which can actually be resolved by clarifying the criteria for inclusion. I'd suggest a new proposal nominating all parallel Categories of other modes of transport for the same treatment, allowing them all to be discussed as a group. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have just removed Airport (EP) and On Air (Alan Parsons album) as neither are songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the category, seems like a fairly common and notable subject for songs. Abstaining for the renaming discussion though.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too vague and not notable.--Darksheets52 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename The topic seems notable, the scope should be expanded. The category could use some clean-up to assure that these articles are on topic. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not a notable topic.--Darksheets52 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment, I suppose it only makes sense to delete the category if it would be the start of cutting the entire Category:Songs by theme tree. While I'd be neutral towards the latter, I don't think we should delete the nominated category just on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:. There is plenty of precedent to deleting individual theme categories :-
--Richhoncho (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If just one category gets nominated, we should get clear why this category should be deleted in contrast to its siblings. But many of the delete arguments in previous discussions are general arguments that apply to any song theme. So then just nominate the entire tree. With the above history I would support the nomination per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Marcocapelle. Most if not all of the deletions in that list were based on arguments relating to the subject of the specific category. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As indeed are all the delete arguments in respect of this category. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural comment, this discussion should be closed in conjunction with the larger discussion about the whole category tree of Songs by theme, to be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, these discussions are complementary: if one is closed without resolution then the other one may still remain open. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since consensus in the other discussion is growing that every song theme category should be nominated separately, this nomination can be closed independently of the other after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2016 (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.
Versus (TV channel)
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Other than the name change, they are the same thing—Versus became NBCSN in 2012. Versus (TV channel) redirects to NBCSN. There is no sense having separate categories for the same network when all that changed was the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- It can produce slightly odd results, but this applies the principle we use for alumni categories for merged or renamed institutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2016 (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.