< May 5 May 7 >

May 6

TSV 1860 Munich

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 all (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To bring in line with parent article TSV 1860 Munich after it was moved from TSV 1860 München to its new name following the discussion on Talk:TSV 1860 Munich#Requested move 28 April 2016. Calistemon (talk) 22:38, 6 May 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.

French historic monuments by location

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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose changing names combining English and French terms to all English (monument historique = historic monument). This would bring the name in line with its grandparent Category:Official historical monuments of France. The category's description can make it clear that the French designation monument historique is analogous to UK scheduled building, US national historic landmark, etc. Eric talk 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not oppose us keeping it as "Historical Monuments" (so capitalised) with a headnote limiting it to those officially designated. French is a widely spoken language (unlike Romanian), but this is the English WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 10 May 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:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011–

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 rename (WP:C2C). – Fayenatic London 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011– to Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011–16
Nominator's rationale: Update the category name, to reflect the fact that a new Assembly was elected yesterday. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 6 May 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:Reddit employees

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) 01:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For websites naming the category "XYZ people" is more inclusive and accurate in the long term. This category already includes at least one former employee and in the parent category, there are other biographies of reddit people who are not employees. Those biographies need a category, and it should be "reddit people". Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 6 May 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:Tweenage characters in comics

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) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and arbitrary subcat of Category:Comics characters. Created in March and was subsequently never populated. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the nominating rationale, there's no clear definition of 'tweenage', making it hard to find articles it applies to. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 6 May 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:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union

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) 01:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
A Hero City is a Soviet-era award issued to whole cities for resisting the Nazi invasion from 1941-1944. This isn't a battlefield category, it's was given to major cities like Saint Petersburg, as Leningrad, and Volgograd, as Stalingrad. (There is one non-city article in the category, but it is miscategorized based on a similar award.) Kiev is a city of 3 million people that was founded in 482; this category defines that article by a 1965 award for the events of 1941 which doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already lisitifed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ezhiki as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified WikiProject Russia as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2016; 12:49 (UTC)
  • Delete, not every characteristic is a defining characteristic and it is certainly not in this case. One really needs to search for the fact that a city has once been a Hero City, it's not one of the primary things mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I use the the WP:OCAWARD reason for a nomination, I always put the WP:NONDEFINING reason after it in parentheses. It's not that I'm unsure of it's applicability, I just don't think the award rational provides any analysis beyond "nondefining, but with awards". (Based on your comments, I think we agree on this point.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: We do have a category for Category:Cities of Military Glory. (Full Disclosure: I'm not a fan of that category either.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I now think that should be the only city honour allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 12 May 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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television

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 without prejudice against creating an additional sibling and parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It can't be called under the Warner Bros. Television name anymore, shows from other Time Warner divisions are in the category since their owned by Time Warner.47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know that, but the rename from WBTV to Time Warner, will make the category the home of all Time Warner shows, HBO shows like Game of Thomes can be coming to the category, the only HBO shows listed are ones like Everybody Loves Raymond, Turner shows from channels like CNN and TBS will also be in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you know your rationale for a category merge is wrong, but you want it to happen anyway, just so everything produced by a company connected to Time Warner is in one category? Trivialist (talk) 21:22, 9 May 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.

Hindu theology

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the term "theology" is alien to Hinduism, there is no article Hindu theology and Category:Hindu theologians is nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 6 May 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.

Islamic theology

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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, the term "theology" is alien to Islam, there is no article Islamic theology and not too many people in Category:Muslim theologians are really defined as a theologian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be an alternative too. My understanding of (Christian) theology, then phrased in terms of these categories, is that it's the scholarly study of (Christianity), for example about belief and doctrine, so that's why I suggested to merge to "studies" wherever I could, because all the content is about scholarly studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no truth to the claim that "theology" is not applicable to Islam. Oxford University Press has just published The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, and the table of contents matches closely with the topics listed under Category:Islamic theology. Islamic Studies is an umbrella term for various Islamic fields and there is still a need for a separate category for Islamic theological thought. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's true that the term "Islamic theology" doesn't have a long history as "Christian theology" does, and the whole concept of "Islamic theology" might not be the preferred approach to studying Islam in the Muslim world. However, in quite some Western countries, Islamic theology has been lately established as an academic discipline. If this proposal was about renaming categories to something better, I'd be open for alternative suggestions, but a simple merge IMHO doesn't really help us. A genuine main article on Islamic theology however remains desirable. --PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 24 May 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:Communities on U.S. Route 66

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) 01:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same issue as below: being on a road isn't defining. Taking this to every notable road would create an unmanageable category overload. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't believe this category is the same as the one below. –Fredddie™ 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nondefining category. Dough4872 20:38, 6 May 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:Ghost towns on U.S. Route 66

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lots of roads are famous, still signed or not. There seems to be nothing defining about this. US routes generally already have a list of communities they pass through, and these are already categorized as ghost towns by state, so there's no need for listification or upmerge. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the nominator's rationale is sound, but US 66 is a special case among all roads in the US. These ghost towns are intrinsically linked to the road in ways that is not true of other highways. They're ghost towns because US 66 went away. Any other road in the US I would absolutely !vote delete, but I can't for US 66. –Fredddie™ 11:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, US 40 is by far the more historic road, if not having the benefit of Hollywood romanticism, and there are surely many towns along it that no longer exist. But second, I'm not seeing this connection to the bypassing by I-40 in most of the articles, and those that do source it mostly to fansites. Third, there's also the problem that a lot of these aren't ghost towns; they have ceased to exist entirely. Finally, maybe it makes sense to categorize ghost towns by the reason they became so, but surely there are other towns on other roads which evaporated because of being bypassed. The point is that this doesn't add up to this category. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
US 66 wasn't abandoned either. Like US 40, it was bypassed in favor of interstates; US 66 dropped as a route number, but the road(s) didn't disappear. And surely small towns along the bypassed segments of US 40 and the many other US routes supplanted by limited access highways also faded away. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you quoting? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that US 40 is "by far the more historic road" doesn't really hold water here. US 66 has a segment of Americana that US 40 or any other road simply doesn't. Lincoln Highway, Jefferson Highway, and the National Road come close, but still not to the degree of US 66. –Fredddie™ 03:20, 7 May 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.
More