< April 22 April 24 >

April 23

Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent

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 the Greek Orthodox sub-categories to Eastern Orthodox. No consensus on the subject of deletion, mostly because it is simultaneously too broad (introduced late and well outside the original discussion) and too narrow (if your quarrel is with descent categorization in general, that's a larger question that needs to be considered together). A further discussion examining descent categorization as a whole would be helpful. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent to Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎
Nominator's rationale: merge (in either direction, I've tagged both categories), the two categories obviously have the same purpose. There aren't any other Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Levant than the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oriental Orthodoxy is not part of Eastern (/Greek) Orthodoxy, and (except for Syriacs) it is not Levantine either, so we should be a bit careful with merging too much at once. Some more difficulties to take into account: we also have Catholics in the Levant, and not all Levantine Christians self-identify as Arab. But the main question is of course: which group(s) are considered to be ethnoreligious descent group(s) according to reliable sources? As you pointed out, there is not too much information about that available. We have had a very long discussion about this more than a year ago, see here, but this neither led to consensus, nor did it result in a new or improved Wikipedia article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. By the way, Greek is the language of worship, but having said that, there is no guarantee that descendants of Levantine-Orthodox people still visit a church of the same denomination as their ancestors. The articles hardly ever touch that subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in order to add sub-cats to the nomination, and link to predecent discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding and tagging sub-cats on relisting:
  • Propose merging Category:American people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent to Category:American people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎
  • Propose merging Category:British people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent to Category:British people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎
I can handle religious/regional intersection but throwing in descent assumes this becomes an ethnic identity. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous struck comment was based on overseeing the earlier relisting comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of deleting all 6 (and all the other "descent" categories) - (assuming that any subcats are upmerged if necessary along the way). Someone's ethnicity might be a suitable characteristic for categorization (but nationality+occupation is much better), but these ill-defined categories of which one person can be in many (I've seen articles in at least 5 "descent" categories) are not good categorization. Often it's not even mentioned in the article - see, for example, Helen Thomas. DexDor (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting 9 categories that should be treated the same: Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent, Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎, with its 4 + 3 nationality subcategories. I suppose that if the 6 tagged categories are going to be deleted now, the three that aren't tagged can be speedied later. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 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:American science fiction fantasy films

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. Arguments for deletion were varied, but it's undoubtedly the case that the category as-is helps no-one. No prejudice against creation and population of a Category:American science fantasy films in the future if there are a sufficient number of articles to warrant it. (edit conflict) @Jc37: The original nomination references "article" in the singular and uses a trait of the singular movie as a reason for renaming, so I doubt this was emptied. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 09:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Because the article is science fantasy, and there is Category:Science fantasy films. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 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:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX other parameters

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 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Anime and manga articles with obsolete XXX other parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Previously populated by Template:Infobox animanga and its components, this tracking category is no longer needed and the checks that populated this category have been removed. I was looking an appropriate speedy deletion criteria, but didn't see one that was applicable. —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 23 April 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:Commercially available Elms

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 to Category:Ulmus. The concerns that this category is not a subset of cultivars were never refuted, and upon reviewing the articles, I found multiple cases where the articles were not about cultivars. Ulmus is the existing parent category, so the merge target should be there instead. Most merge supporters didn't specify a target, but this one received no opposition. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This new category was proposed for speedy renaming to lower case, but user:Le Deluge questioned whether this is a WP:Defining characteristic, and pointed out that there don't seem to be any equivalent categories. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Fayenatic, I see you suggested merging Category:Commercially available Elms to Category:Elm cultivars. Whilst I thank you for your suggestion, these two categories both have separate uses. Category:Elm cultivars contains elm cultivars, not all of which are commercially available and Category:Commercially available Elms contains elms which are available commercially, not all of which are cultivars. So, I would ask please that these two categories not be merged. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thank you, Tom elm (talk) 20:52, 23 April 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.

Synchronised swimming in Brazil

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 as per Option A. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EITHER Option A
OR Option B
  • Propose renaming Category:Brazilian synchronized swimmers to Category:Brazilian synchronised swimmers
  • Propose renaming Category:Olympic synchronized swimmers of Brazil to Category:Olympic synchronised swimmers of Brazil
Nominator's rationale: I closed the recent discussion on March 20 and found no consensus on Option A, but that nomination did not point out the related Brazilian categories which are now listed here as option B. In support of option A, American English is normally used in the Americas where there is no strong British connection. In support of option B, some Brazilian categories use the "s" spellings, notably Category:Organisations based in Brazil. I tend to favour option A, but this time we must choose one or the other. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 23 April 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:Automobile awards by continent

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:SMALLCAT
This category contains 3 items: an award for cars sold in Europe, an award for cars made in North America, and a regional Middle Eastern award that doesn't belong in this category at all. I don't have any conceptual problem with this category but, in practice, it isn't a cohesive grouping. Most auto awards are by type of car, country or publication so there's not much room for growth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Fram as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:42, 23 April 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