< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

Category:Actors by city or town in Curaçao

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
  • Category:Actors by city or town in Curaçao to Category:Curaçao actors
  • Category:Male actors by city or town in Curaçao to Category:Curaçao male actors
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. The island of Curaçao is too small to need a category of actors-by-city. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2017 (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:Nepal Pratap Bhaskara

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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Nepal Pratap Bhaskara
  • Propose Deleting Category:Members of Nepal Pratap Bhaskara
  • Propose Deleting Category:Order of Ojaswi Rajanya
  • Propose Deleting Category:Members of the Order of Ojaswi Rajanya
  • Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Mahendra Chain
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Nepal Pratap Bhaskara is given to members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:Nepalese royalty. The other two awards are given both domestic royalty and also to foreign royalty and officials like Henrik, Prince of Denmark and Emperor Akihito. In both cases the award is secondary to the underlying reason for notability. If you want to see the clutter these type of awards create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. (If we decide to delete these categories, I listed the recipients in each main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Nepal. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2017 (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:Fictional dandies

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 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a clearly defined category. Few, if any, of these characters have been identified as a dandy in universe, so majority of these characters are put in this category based on editors personal opinion of the character. JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (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:Roman Catholic organizations by century of establishment

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 top one for now, but I recommend that editors hold off on nominating others for a month, pending the proposed RfC discussion, as the DRV was inconclusive. The sub-cats that were subject to the speedy nomination therefore lapse for now. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C and WP:C2D, align with Category:Catholic organizations, Category:Catholic Church and ultimately with article Catholic Church. A nomination including child categories was declined for speedy rename (see collapsed below) so let's first discuss the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion upon speedy nomination
  • Oppose, because this creates ambiguity. The Oct 2016 CFD was flawed, because the nominator failed to even mention the previous discussions, and the closer made no mention of taking them into account. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Maybe a DRV is not needed yet as we can first have a renewed discussion here. The issue is apparently about Catholic Church (disambiguation) in article space. I'm not sure whether we have any precedents when the category name does not follow the main article name in case a disambiguation page exists that is not the main page. In any case it is not desirable to have some categories at "Catholic" and others at "Roman Catholic", I suppose we all agree on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Roman Catholic (term)#Common misconception. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless anyone would start an RM procedure on Catholic Church, the choice for now is between having the article at Catholic Church and the categories at Roman Catholic or having both article and category names at Catholic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it is an entirely mechanical argumentation (although that was originally the case by posting the nomination for speedy). I can only agree with User:Od Mishehu: if the name is unambiguous enough for the article, it's unambiguous enough for the categories. In fact ambiguity isn't mentioned too often by opposers above, it is either misconception or a fundamental unhappiness with the main article not being at Roman Catholic Church. But the latter is a discussion we cannot have here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, it's not a good idea (and not very AGF) to make unevidenced assertions of the motivations of other editors, so In hope you will withdraw that. For myself, I haven't formed a view on the merits of the name of the head article; my concern is that while that title may work fine for articles, ambiguity is much more problematic in category names.
    And in Marcocapelle's reply, I still see no answer to my question of how it helps readers or introduce this ambiguity to category titles. So apart from the regrettable ABF, this still looks to me like a purely mechanistic argument.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Okay let's take this from a different angle: what potential ambiguity is there in Catholic organizations? Answer: there are also independent Catholic communities who consider themselves to be Catholic while they are not in communion with the Catholic Church. Next question: do we actually have articles about organizations of independent Catholic communities? Answer: I have no idea. Next question: what harm would there be if organizations of independent Catholic communities have been or will be classified in this tree? My answer: I can't think of any. Next question: what harm would there be if we would bring articles about organisations of independent Catholic communities (if they exist) together in a subcategory within this tree? Again my answer: I can't imagine how that could be harmful either. A different question: should we parent the category into the tree of Category:Catholic Church? Answer: no, not only because we have independent Catholics, but also because there are a lot of non-ecclesiastical Catholic organizations such as Catholic trade unions and Catholic political parties. The Catholic organizations category does belong within the tree of Category:Catholicism though. So in all honesty I don't see any ambiguity problem with Catholic organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Marcocapelle's first question above, there seem to me to be probably at least a few groups which might qualify as Eastern Catholic "organizations" as per Catholic religious order. That grouping might include at least a few EC monasteries. Also, there are at least a few groups in Category:Old Catholic denominations. Groups of both types might, presumably, qualify as "Catholic" groups, but maybe not necessarily "Roman Catholic". There may be a few Old Catholic religious orders as well, I dunno. Personally, I would have no objections to a broad "Catholic" category which might contain multiple subcats for independent Catholic, Old Catholic, and Eastern Catholic along with Roman Catholic, although, perhaps, there might be some gain in having text included in the category indicating exactly what material should go where. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please see: Category:Independent Catholicism, where Category:Independent Catholic organizations consequently have its logical location, embedding Old Catholic etc. Problem solved. Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2017 (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:Dead-end pages from August 2016

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: administrative close. Category has already been deleted per WP:G6. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has been emptied Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 07:26, 4 February 2017 (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:Foreign observers of Russia

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 after partial merges to Category:Western writers about Russia or Category:Russian studies scholars. There was no consensus about the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign observers of Russia, but support there for deleting the category. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge actual scholars Right now this includes a list article which has entries such as "922: Ahmed ibn Fadlan travelled from Bagdad to near Kazan, saw Vikings, 1682: John Milton A Brief History of Muscovy compiled from other sources, 1687: Foy de la Neuville possibly travelled in Russia" This is a random assemblage. For the persons who are truly academics of Russian culture/history, the parent cat is appropriate. (I am also proposing the list article be deleted.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 4 February 2017 (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:Sexuality in the former 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: rename Category:LGBT culture in the former Soviet Union to Category:LGBT culture in the Soviet Union; this contains a film category with a single film article. User:Le Deluge has already created the first three target categories as parents over the "former SU" categories, but as those "former SU" categories mostly contain nothing about the Soviet era, I will delete them (emptying them, rather than merging the contents to Soviet Union), moving only Category:Sexuality in Russia into the top one, and LGBT history in Russia into the second one. – Fayenatic London 00:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tautologies. There is no current Soviet Union. It was dissolved in 1991. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment, I see now there are more similar "in the former Soviet Union" categories that are container categories with contemporary countries that were once Soviet subdivisions while these subcategories mainly have post-Soviet content. Let's leave them for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (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:Fictional Yakuza members

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category JDDJS (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2017 (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:Companies based on São Tomé Island

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT (only 2 articles). We don't have anywhere near enough coverage either of São Tomé Island or of the Category:Companies of São Tomé and Príncipe to need such a narrow category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 4 February 2017 (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:Battles involving Zaire

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. Small category (only one battle included) and the consensus is leaning 'keep'. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zaire was renamed to Democratic Republic of the Congo. Same country, same borders, different regime. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection. But do we have guidelines about how to handle countries - or geographical entities - which change their names? When the battle, which is the only thing in the category, took place it was called Zaire. Should there, in principle, be two categories?Rathfelder (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might have two categories, in theory, but that's not very meaningful with the little content we currently have. A better alternative is to proceed with renaming the nominated category and add the one article also to Category:Zaire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is substantially the same country even while under different names. It was called Democratic Republic of the Congo before and after it was called Zaire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that just a name change turns a country into a different country. For categorization, of course we may create categories containing the alternative name (because the alternative name reflects another period of history) insofar sufficient content for these categories is available, but we don't have to make the tree with the alternative name as refined as the main tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is almost an apples-and-pears comparison (the change in Zimbabwe was way more impactful than in Congo/Zaire), for categorization I would still argue that Rhodesia is a (notable and defining) period in the history of Zimbabwe, rather than a different country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2017 (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