January 16
Category:Women who have been crowned king
- 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) 06:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Of the articles in this category, only Jadwiga of Poland was actually crowned as king. The other 5 were Queens regnant, and are already in Category:Queens regnant or its subcats.
- The label used in Jadwiga's coronation is an interesting, but for all practical purposes Jadwiga was a Queen regnant, and should be categorised as such. Per WP:CAT, en.wp categories are about navigation ... and this single-item category impedes navigation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Jadwiga's case is certainly an interesting one, and deserving of a note in King (which I have added). Mary, Queen of Hungary was also crowned as a king. It's hardly worth a category of two that will likely never be enlargeable though. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- I suspect that something has been lost in translation regarding Jadwiga, but I do not know Polish. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The distinction between a queen regnant and a "woman who has been crowned king" hinges less on any defining difference of substance and more on a deficiency of language or translation. It's true that there may have been some sources in the past which called a woman "king" because the language or legal and constitutional conventions of their time didn't allow the concept of a queen being the monarch in her own right rather than the mere spouse or consort of a male monarch, but in actual practice the only substantive distinction between a queen regnant and a female "king" is in the word used, not in what the roles actually entail. Even Jadwiga's article explicitly states that she was given the title king in order to emphasize that she was a queen regnant rather than a queen consort, because she was engaged to be married and people might thus have mistakenly perceived her husband as the real monarch instead of her — so even she doesn't prove the existence of a distinction between queens regnant and female kings. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 20 January 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 inline hockey team stubs
- 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 template and delete category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Put together, there's nearly enough articles to justify one stub category for inline hockey teams. Propose upmerging template ((US-inlinehockey-team-stub)) to Category:Inline hockey team stubs. Delete Category:American inline hockey team stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:44, 16 January 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:Educational leadership
- 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: purge biographies and merge the remainder to Category:Educational administration. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: the contents of this category are a jumble of:
- people who had various diverse roles academic administrators or founders
- some articles around the topic of educational leadership
- a hall of fame
- etc
- I don't see a clear distinction between the concepts of educational administration, educational management and educational leadership. The choice of terminology seems more driven by changes in fashion than by any substantive difference in the activities involved.
- So I suggest purging the biogs, and merge the rest. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine with me. ~ RichardF (talk) 12:13, 16 January 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:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unclear what the value of the category is to the project, though possibly of value to Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. General Ization Talk 05:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Considerably more than a nine-word stub, and claiming some notable alumni and partners, but I agree about the categories. Grutness...wha? 14:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by lack of content. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- This will make an appropriate main article for the "people" category, so that we do not need an eponymous category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – per Peterkingiron. Oculi (talk) 20:52, 19 January 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:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler partners
Category:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler associates
- 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 Category:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unclear what the value of the category is to the project, though possibly of value to Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. General Ization Talk 05:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, while in general we allow people by company categories, it does not seem a defining characteristic in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler people. One category should be ample for the firm. If the deletion of articles on NN people empties that, it should of course be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – per Peterkingiron. Oculi (talk) 20:53, 19 January 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:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler people
- 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unclear what the value of the category is to the project, though possibly of value to Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. General Ization Talk 05:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional (in fact if not in intent) category about a Wikipedia article that is a nine-word stub (which, by the way, should be AfDed). Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, while in general we allow people by company categories, it does not seem a defining characteristic in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This and merge in the partners and associates. As long as we have articles on all of them we need a category for them. It may well be an ADVERT, and if all the people are in fact NN, so that it has no population or only a main article, it can be deleted then. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per Peterkingiron, with whom I agree fully on this matter. Oculi (talk) 20:54, 19 January 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.