< January 20 January 22 >

January 21

Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Lukovo, Kuršumlija

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: upmerge most, keep Belgrade. The Sarajevo categories have now expanded to 3 RC churches and 3 Orthodox, so I'm closing the nominated one as no consensus. As a consequence of the merger, Category:Churches in Szentendre becomes empty and will also be deleted under WP:G6. – Fayenatic London 18:41, 11 March 2017‎
Nominator's rationale: Ultra-categorization, these categories will only house 1-2 articles. Note that Lukovo, Kuršumlija is a village with 300~ inhabitants. The category creator Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro has created many similar categories.--Zoupan 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categories have all the minimum requirements demanded by wikipedia, they are similar to thousands of similar categories that organize buildings by country, region, city locality and in this case by Christian denomination. Are useful to the wikipedia user because they allow you to easily find a group of buildings per city of each religion in an organized way. The user who made the request without consulting before removed the categories of the articles leaving them empty which is close to being vandalism. I accept the decisions of the community, and I hope to consider the work done without animating to annoy other users--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to include Category:Serbian Orthodox churches by city and sub-categories as well, created by the user.--Zoupan 09:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fair enough, you should then tag these other categories and add them to the list here. It surprises me though that the Belgrade category is empty, as I would expect that would be the first (and perhaps only) one to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The user Zoupan, with bad intencion empty the category of Serbian orthodox churches of belgrade (7 articles) to later submit it to vote as an empty category, clearly there is a bad intention. I suspect it has religious reasons to attack such categories so hard and ignore thousands of other similar categories .. As I said before the categories only follow a standard very used in wikipedia that is to organize religious buildings based on a denomination, such So that if the wikipedia user wants to consult articles of Orthodox Catholic or Protestant churches can do it with ease instead of having to review a single large category, if the user wants to consult articles of churches in Baroque, Byzantine, etc. style is the same, If the user wants to consult articles of the eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth century is the same..is a very common model in wikipedia. --Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All articles except those in Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Belgrade have the 'upmerged' categories, so, yes, that one will have to be merged. Religious architecture in Belgrade lists by denomination. I don't think the churches in Belgrade should be divided by denomination in category space.--Zoupan 02:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoupan: Even if the articles are dual-categorised when the nomination is made, there is no guarantee that this won't be fixed by the time the discussion is closed, because per WP:SUBCAT they should not be in both a category and its parent. So best to implement a merger rather than deletion, to ensure that nothing gets lost.
As to Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Belgrade and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belgrade‎, please note that Category:Churches by city is very well-developed, and includes a well-developed set of subcats by religion, including over 500 subcats of Category:Roman Catholic churches by city. Categorising churches by religion and city is well-established, so unless you can establish a consensus for some reason to treat Serbia as an exception to this widespread norm, then there is no reason to merge only the Serbian ones.
OTOH, if you have a rationale for upmerging churches-by-religion-and-city in general, the solution is a group nomination for them all, rather than just randomly picking ouit the Serbian churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those over 500 subcats were not present prior to Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro. There are towns and villages included. Most have 1–3 articles (definition of SMALLCAT). I don't view that as a "norm". Also, 'Serbian Orthodox' is not a denomination, 'Eastern Orthodox' is. The subject of this nomination is these above listed categories. I deal with categorizing daily, and see this overcategorization in Balkans-related articles as superfluous. When expansion warrants sub-categorization, I will be the first to support.--Zoupan 03:52, 6 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:Lists of type of foods

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_11 as two options. – Fayenatic London 18:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is a little unclear, and might be read to imply that the members are lists of food types, where they're actually lists of dishes, organized by type. Ibadibam (talk) 19:30, 21 January 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:Bambata (musical project)

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This eponymous category contains 3 albums plus the main article. The albums are already correctly categorised as Category:Bambata (music project) albums (nominated to speedy rename to match the main article). There is not enough material to justify having a category to hold the main article plus a subcategory. Tassedethe (talk) 18:15, 21 January 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:Principality of Cilicia

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. – Fayenatic London 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, too little content, there is currently just one subcategory and no articles in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 21 January 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:Lords of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia

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, reversing a C2C move a few years ago. I have resolved this by making Category:Monarchs of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia a succeeding category rather than a parent category. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Lords of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia to Category:Lords of Armenian Cilicia
Nominator's rationale: rename, Armenian Cilicia wasn't a kingdom yet under these lords. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 21 January 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:Grandparents of Presidents of the United States

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 (non-admin closure) feminist 02:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
  • Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization; being related to a President (except for maybe spouses) isn't exactly a key trait overall. It's better to just discuss relations within article prose instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A look at the people in this category shows most wouldn't have an article if they were not grandparent to a president. That seems to be only notable item for most of them. Calvin Galusha Coolidge?
    Roseohioresident (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any people only have articles at the moment because of their Presidential grandchildren, then they don't warrant articles at all since notability isn't inherited and this would mean such subjects fail WP:Notability (people) when not noted for anything meaningful outside of family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I can understajnd categories for immwediate relatives of US presidents, I see no reason for categories for more distant relatives. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:19, 21 January 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:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization; Scope completely overlaps with Category:SPI cases waiting for a CheckUser. While nominating either of them make sense, this is nominated for not being included in the doc of SPI case status template. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 05:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination on behalf of ((SPI case status|relist)). NasssaNser (talk/edits) 05:39, 21 January 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:Landforms in Antalya Province

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 per WP:G7 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 21 January 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