Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3

[edit]

Category:Ancient Christianity

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with formula of closest relevant comparable article Christianity in late antiquity, but most importantly with equivalent time period entries in Category:History of Christianity by period. See also: former nomination. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Are you sure? The only category I can found there applicable to your assertion are Category:Ancient Roman religion‎ and Category:Ancient Greek religion, but in these cases the wording "Ancient" is accidental, referring to Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece - while ultimately not the religion, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also looking in Category:Religion in ancient history. Four sub-cats within the nominated category are "Ancient Christian X", and Category:Ancient Christianity studies has more that match the current name, which would be awkward to rename following this nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - what about all the sub-cats? The proposed name is no clearer. One might achieve extra clarity by just using "before 476 (approx)" or whatever. There is more than one "closest relevant comparable article" - Early Christianity for a start, so the nom rationale falls down. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2018 (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:MediaWiki icons

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category, and that article is already a member of the parent category. Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (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:Africa's Next Top Model

[edit]
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. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent per WP:SMALLCAT. It appears to the structure of the parent to do it this way. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This looks to me to be the exception, in which the structure of the parent category warrants small categories. It makes sense to group the articles on each show together for clarity of the parent category, even if the work is incomplete. --Bsherr (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and clarity is in this case also very well preserved because the articles in the parent category are sorted on alphabet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2018 (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:Wildlife in the Falkland Islands

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. Most countries/regions have the biota category directly under the natural history category (e.g. see Category:Biota of Australia). "Wildlife" categories tend to mess up the category structure (e.g. because some editors take it to include flora whilst others don't, some editors put it above biota and some put it below). DexDor (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2018 (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:Jamaican supercentenarians

[edit]
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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another supercentenarian category with only a single page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 3 December 2018 (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:Districts of Rome

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It qualifies to C2D but the category was created way before the creation of en-wiki article, so it seem worth to discuss. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, despite the cat tree used Districts of foo, there was Arrondissements of Lyon as Arrondissements may be the better transliteration than Districts. Also, since larger "districts" existed in Rome as Municipi of Rome, seem better use Quarters. Matthew hk (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (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:Christmas radio stations in the United States

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The move to the all-Christmas format is a seasonal move only. In my opinion, having a category specifically dedicated to those radio stations which make the move for 4-8 weeks out of the year is blatantly trivial and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's one thing to make a brief mention within an article's prose (i.e., "Station WXYZ has a history of making a seasonal move to an all-Christmas format each year before reverting to its primary format after December 25th"), but it is another to have a category dedicated to it. StrikerforceTalk 15:54, 3 December 2018 (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:White genocide conspiracy theorists

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: POV BLP category, created by a socking POV pusher. Those who actually belong to this category are white nationalists and white supremacists, and they are already in those categories, because reliable sources generally treat the subject matter in that way. wumbolo ^^^ 15:51, 3 December 2018 (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:Wikipedians whose tenure has been taken away

[edit]
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) 09:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Does not appear to be useful in any way to categorize users who had their tenure (at a university?) taken away. There is no encyclopedia-benefiting reason to be seeking out users in this category. VegaDark (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That can be avoided either by:
  1. The category's lone user, @Randykitty agreeing to remove it from their user page. (@VegaDark: This categ was created as a comment on an en.wp dispute, not as university comment. The dispute which triggered it was a long time ago, and the point made by this categ is less relevant, so maybe Randykitty would agree to its removal)
  2. The category being re-created as a hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories.
I implemented the latter solution last year on several dozen such contentious user categories, and it kept nearly everyone happy: the categories didn't really exist, and they didn't end up in SWC, so the editors could keep the entries on their talk pages. The only difficulty was some editors who objected to hard-redirected categories, thereby removing the only workable compromise.
Two years ago, SWC had many dozens of permanent entries in the shape of redlink usercats, which was a plain in the neck for those who do the encyclopedic maintenance of cleaning up the redlinked cats. The tally of perma-redlinks has now been reduced to two. Please don't impede the cleanup work by pushing that tally back up again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing my !vote). @Randykitty has kindly removed themself from the category, so it is now empty. It can therefore be deleted without adverse effects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always advocate emptying categories I nominate for deletion. As far as I know there is not much of an explicit movement to allow users to remain in categories that have been deleted by consensus thereby creating redlinks; but rather I think the main problem is the reluctance of the community to come to a consensus how to actually enforce this insofar as it relates to user categories. I agree with you that it is unfortunate that a user in a redlinked category is a potential result of this discussion, however, that is a potential risk for literally any user category brought up for deletion. I don't like the idea of a category being kept proverbially hostage as a blue link based on speculation that a user may defy CfD consensus and retain a deleted category on their userpage. I would say let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Just because this was initially created because it was a redlink does not necessarily imply that a user would re-ad themselves to the category after a CfD discussion results in deletion. This category has no deletion history so we cannot say for sure if the user in question would be inclined to do so or not.
I would suggest the proper method of handling this situation would be
    1. A category is nominated for discussion;
    2. After a result of renaming, merge, or deletion, users in the deleted category are respectively moved to the new category or removed from the category in case of deletion (regardless of any preference the user may or may not have expressed about people editing categories on their userpage);
    3. A category that has been deleted should remain red by default with no redirect (just as you have concerns about clutter for redlinks in Special:Wantedcategories, I have similar concerns of clutter in Wikipedia:Database reports/User categories, which lists category redirects such as the ones you propose);
    4. If and only if a user reverts the change on their userpage to re-add themselves to a newly deleted category, only then do we entertain the option of re-creating the page as a hard redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages (Not Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories, as you suggest. Was that a mistake?);
My personal preference is to keep the category red, but I am willing to defer to consensus here. The problem is that there was never actually any consensus to start creating these redirects. It was unilaterally implemented, and a few editors liked that solution so it has semi-stuck. I have never been a fan of that solution personally and would welcome a more encompassing discussion to determine if there actually is consensus to follow that method or do something else. Again, your proposed solution introduces the redirects to be listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/User categories, thereby making it far more difficult to be able to use that list to identify problem categories that need to be addressed. Even ignoring that issue I'm not entirely sure that I would be okay with category redirects; having the category blue, even as a redirect, feels far too close to comfort for me in regards to legitimizing said categories and/or encouraging their use. I absolutely don't like them as redlinks either, but if we cannot get a community consensus to actually enforce our user category policy and WP:REDNOT then my mild preference would be for the category to remain red, with no redirect, in spite of it being added to Special:WantedCategories.
I think we can both agree the best solution is for the users to be removed from the category in the event of deletion. It's if the users re-add themselves that we disagree on the ideal solution. Again, I say we cross that bridge when we come to it. I don't think the fear of that scenario occurring should guide a decision as to keep or delete a category, however. VegaDark (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark, this is all moot now that the category is empty. However, I really do think that you should step back from the big principles, and look at this pragmatically.
A few frivolous categories such as this do much less harm to the encyclopedia than impeding encyclopedic maintenance. Yes, CFD consensus should be upheld; yes there may not be consensus for those redirects; but while those big principles are unresolved, just avoid buggering up the cleanup lists.
Many tens of thousands of words were expended on this in the first half of last year, and I see no pint in going there again. Please don't suck more editorial time down that black hole for the sake of one inoffensive category on one userpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BrownHairedGirl, All I did was nominate a category. You brought up the potential situation of a user re-adding themselves after the category was deleted, so I added my position on the issue should that situation come to pass. Do you disagree with my "Cross that bridge when we come to it" approach? Are you suggesting that I need to take this possibility into account prior to the nomination process rather than simply the utility of the category to the encyclopedia? Because I certainly believe they are two distinct issues and don't feel the need to consider a user possibly ignoring a CfD consensus when nominating a category in the first place. VegaDark (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VegaDark, I'm suggesting exactly that. We have an unresolved disjuncture between CFD consensuses on usercats and the community's willingness to uphold those consensuses. That gap causes disruptive knock-on effects elsewhere, which causes more probs than the usercats. Sometimes, best to just let sleeping dogs lie, or else try a diplomatic approach to the usually lone occupant of the UCAT. As you saw here, @Randykitty was friendly and helpful when pinged in a non-condemnatory comment, and kindly resolved the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BrownHairedGirl, your request essentially amounts to me no longer nominating user categories for deletion out of fear that a consensus won't be honored, which happens in an extreme minority of user category discussions. I don't think that's a good reason to be shying away from user category nominations. Also, categories that are not deleted via consensus here generally are not able to be speedy deleted through the G4 speedy deletion criterion - When I spot a problem category I like to be sure it won't have to go through the regular deletion process if it crops up again, which happens constantly. VegaDark (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually cannot remember why I added that category. I've removed it now, so it's empty. Having said that, I don't really get the enormous efforts people make to remove this kind of rather harmless usercats. Sure, it's against the letter of things, but really... --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about "CfD community consensus": in the past it has happened to me that someone took a similar usercat to CfD and then (despite the polite request not to do that) edited my user page to remove that category. If you do not inform the persons that are directly involved (because they actually are in that category), then don't be surprised if people don't respect a "community decision" of 2 or 3 people that was taken without them even being aware of the fact that there was a discussion. If BHG had not pinged me, I'd most certainly would have been miffed if some zeolous editor had then removed this cat from my user page without contacting me first. Having said all this, really, people, is this going to break the 'pedia? Do we really need to spend valuable editor time on these trivialities?? --Randykitty (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2018 (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:Wikipedians who wear tiaras

[edit]
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. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Appears to be some sort of irreverent/joke category. There is no encyclopedia-benefiting reason to be seeking out users in this category. VegaDark (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Carptrash: Haven't you benefited from this category?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Nominations regarding user-generated categories for Wikipedians be granted the lowest priority of any category discussions as they do not impact the articles that form the heart of the project and editors like creating them. Delete if the affected editors don't mind red links on their user pages. But this is a completely trivial user category that affects two editors and of course has no "encyclopedia-benefiting reason". Must all silliness in user space really need to be stomped out? Is it really deserving of a discussion? Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, @Liz please please please please please do not leave redlinked cats on userpages.
Per WP:REDNOT, a redlinked category is always an error. Either the category page should be created, or the entry should be removed.
Leaving it as redlink on the userpage just makes it a permanent fixture on Special:WantedCategories, getting in the way of editors like me who do the maintenance of work of cleaning up the new entries which appear the at a rate of 50–150 per day. See my longer comment above, at #Category:Wikipedians_whose_tenure_has_been_taken_away.
A redlinked category is not some sort of acceptable half-way house. On the contrary, it's the worst of all options: a daily nuisance to other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The real question here is, how many more Wikipedians wear tiaras? I would venture to say, many, but how would we find out?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, I was just thinking of Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page which seemed like an inside joke, I didn't realize that it caused extra work. It seemed to me that spending the effort going after these tiny Wikipedian categories was misplaced considering all of the straightening out that is still necessary in the Category space. My apologies to you. I will NOT recommend red link user categories. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Liz.
Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page is indeed an inside joke. It's one of two remaining redlinked cats, out of the hundred or more which existed two years ago. It is kept as a compromise between those who want to keep a redlinked cat in memory of the old days, and those who'd like Special:WantedCategories to be completely empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marcocapelle: I don't know how to create a userbox with a tiara, do you? If so, could you please help us with it? Please ping me when you reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: you can find the instructions on how to create a userbox here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have no objection to seeing this user category deleted, and I apologize for not knowing we weren't allowed to joke around on our userpages. I am not sure if I will take the time to create a userbox for this. I can simply wear a tiara secretly whenever I am editing and not tell the world. User:Carptrash has yet to tell us if he wants to keep this category, however.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (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:American people of French-Vietnamese descent

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "French-Vietnamese" is not a defined ethnic group in its own right, it is a combination of two discrete ethnicities -- every single person here has separate lines of French and Vietnamese ancestry, rather than belonging to one named or defined "French-Vietnamese" ethnic group. In an increasingly multiethnic world, we can't feasibly create a category for every possible combination of multiple ethnicities that people might have. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (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:New Zealand supercentenarians

[edit]
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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another supercentenarian category with only one page, a redirect which points to a list containing the subject's nationality. Superfluous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 3 December 2018 (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:Classical Syria

[edit]
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. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, based on the category content this is apparently about the post-Seleucid, hence Roman, period in Syrian history. Further rationale see nomination below. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Syria in the Roman era refers to Roman Syria and should be renamed.GreyShark (dibra) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This suggests it was a single era, which is factually incorrect. In the Hellenistic period Syria was not Greek, it was an independent country and just had Greek cultural influences. That changed entirely when the Romans occupied the country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2018 (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:Classical Palestine

[edit]
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. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, the word 'classical' is normally used only for the Greek and Roman civilizations as such (besides Classical Greece preceded Hellenism), I have never seen it been used for countries in the Middle East in the Hellenistic or Roman era. Since we already have a Greek and Roman category in this case, the content can simply be dispersed. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while Israel in the Roman era may imply to the Hasmonean Kingdom and Palestine in the Roman era may imply Roman Palaestina, the State of Palestine in the Roman era is a completely anachronistic notion. I do not like anachronistic categories. Period.GreyShark (dibra) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israel/Palestine was first occupied by the Syrians (Seleucids), then independent, and finally conquered by the Romans. Having a parent category for these three very different periods (other than an Ancient parent category) makes little sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These alternatives wrongly conflates a "by region" tree structure with a "by modern state" tree structure. The two should be kept separate. This nom is about the region. Open separate discussions for the "by state" questions please. They also wrongly conflate different time periods when entirely different cultural pressures were brought to bear on the regions under discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Classical Palestine is typically referring to the period of Roman rule of the Syria Palaestina province (135-390 CE) and later Byzantine Palaestina Prima (390-636), Palaestina Secunda (390-636) and Palaestina Salutaris (500s-636) provinces. So it is more or less 135-630s of the common era. Some editors want to connect the concept of Roman and Byzantine Classical Palestine with modern Arab State of Palestine, which in my opinion is very misleading.GreyShark (dibra) 08:27, 6 December 2018 (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:Serbian supercentenarians

[edit]
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: speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consists of one unverified claim. Nowhere near enough for a category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 3 December 2018 (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:Ecuadorian supercentenarians

[edit]
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 to parent categories. ℯxplicit 04:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only one person in it. Is this really necessary? Longevity articles are grossly hyper-categorized as a legacy of the Gerontology Research Group using Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their material, this is the result. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:17, 3 December 2018 (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:Poem based on life

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not withstanding that the sole member of this category is up for deletion and the title would be incorrect, the idea that anything can be categorised as 'based on life' is laughable. Richhoncho (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2018 (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 trade unionists

[edit]
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Roman Catholic trade unions are a legitimate topic, simply being a member of the Roman Catholic church and being notable as a trade unionist is a non-notable intersection. TM 00:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could be notable in the context of Catholic social teaching... Dentren | Talk 02:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the merge. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_3&oldid=1079086218"