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 by upmerging to parents:

• Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in popular culture to Category:Mythology in popular culture
• Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics to Category:Mythology in comics
• Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in DC Comics to Category:Mythology in DC Comics
• Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in Marvel Comics to Category:Mythology in Marvel Comics
• Category:Video games based on Judeo-Christian mythology to Category:Mythology-based video games

After this, some recategorisation may be required, e.g. the sub-cat Category:Christianity in popular culture is rightly in Category:Religion in popular culture and does not belong in Mythology. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics
• Propose deleting Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in DC Comics
• Propose deleting Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in Marvel Comics
• Propose deleting Category:Video games based on Judeo-Christian mythology

Nominator's rationale: delete, there isn't an article about Judeo-Christian mythology; both the conjunction of Judeo with Christian and the conjunction of either Judeo or Christian with mythology are very rare. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have articles Judeo-Christian, Jewish mythology and Christian mythology. I do not get what you mean about rarity. Dimadick (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Judeo-Christian topics is a very small category in the large trees of Category:Jews and Judaism and Category:Christianity and there is nothing in Judeo-Christian about mythology. The rationale may better rephrased as: narrow intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not realize article Judeo-Christian was such a poor article that it does not mention the shared mythology. Dimadick (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not poor in that particular respect. Judeo-Christian is a modern theological concept and mythology is hardly an issue in modern theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Most of the content seems to have little to do with either religion or their mythologies. Indeed, I am not sure that either has a mythology, since they are based solidly on the Bible. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Bible itself contains plenty of mythological material, and there are post-Biblical mythological narratives. Dimadick (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : What Dimadick said. (I had more, but my language got a bit... unruly.) VikÞor | Talk 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deleting "Judeo-Christian mythology in comics" and "Video games based on Judeo-Christian mythology", those categories are relevant subclassifications of "Mythology in comics" and "Mythology-based video games". --167.58.6.70 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it is reasonable to merge Category:Judeo-Christian mythology in comics to Category:Mythology in comics and so on for the next nominated categories, rather than deleting them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-defining trait. If Judeo-Christian mythology is important to items in these categories, use the main category, but that certainly doesn't apply to all members of Category:Video games based on Judeo-Christian mythology, for instance czar 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE These are relevant categories.The only reason more stuff probably isn't included in them is the fact that (probably) a lot of people editing were raised Christian, and unless they have consciously left their birth religion, subconsciously feel that it is the truth. Possibly split to Jewish Mythology in Pop Culture and Christian Mythology in Pop Culture etc. because the popular Christian beliefs on some things is quite different than Jewish. Or could go up a level and do Middle Eastern Monotheistic Mythologies in Pop Culture, and include Islam in it, since they all pull from similar base mythologies. (somewhat like Greek / Roman I believe.) VikÞor | Talk 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have a separate article on Islamic mythology. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are grouped in the Abrahamic religions article, along with a few religions with similar origins. Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 3 May 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.

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: reverse merge and redirect. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:UNESCO officials to Category:UNESCO people
• Propose merging Category:United Nations officials to Category:United Nations people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge While there are a number of UN people-by-type categories that are quite clear and specific, there doesn't seem to be any clear delineation between these two category levels, therefore let's merge to simplify navigation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Nations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, "officials" is almost as unspecific as "people". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, i.e. merge and use "officials"; we don't need to be putting your average blue helmet or your average office worker into these categories if they later become notable via some other means. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 17 April 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.

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, but the original rationale has fallen away as these now have 4+ members. – Fayenatic London 20:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:5 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:6 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:7 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:8 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:9 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Categories with only one member; no realistic potential for growth. wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – why is there no potential for growth? These seem to be 1 day old. Category:4 (number) has extensive contents. Oculi (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Fourth television network in Category:4 (number)? Why isn't every item listed on 4 (disambiguation) in that category? Is the number 4 a WP:defining characteristic of a television network? Is Fourth television network about TV networks, or is it about the number "4"? wbm1058 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there is extensive potential for growth here, I'm confident the primary numbers are the topic of many articles. Think about 7 and its superstitious connections. I can imagine the pentagon article being added to the 5 category because of its sides. Perhaps populate the categories instead of proposing deletion after one day. Why isn't 1–4 and 10 on here? Is there a reason I wasn't notified of this? Laurdecl ^talk 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I figured you would find this on your own (and I was right). Dealing with overcategorization isn't something I put much time into, feel free to add the others to the conversation if you like. wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe this is overcategorisation, articles strongly associated with a number should be categorised as such. I feel these are far more useful than many eclectic categories I see – if someone is interested in the number 9 (don't ask me why; there are a lot of weird people out there) then they can find related articles with these. Laurdecl ^talk 03:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep obviously can be further populated as time passes. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is very close to WP:SHAREDNAME, the articles aren't about the number 5 but the article topics contain number 5. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From SHAREDNAME: "For example, a category for unrelated people who happen to be named 'Jackson' is not useful"... How is that related to, for example, a pentagon – the definition of which is a five-sided shape. The number is not tangentially related, but a fundamental part of the concept. Another example: a quintet, defined as a group containing "5 members". Laurdecl ^talk 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon and quintet is not about the number five, they are descriptors containing number five (in another language) because the subject consist of five things. But not everything that consists of five things is in this category, only articles that contain five in the article name are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we don't have Category:A, Category:B, Category:C, Category:D, etc. for everything that has to do with letters of the alphabet either. wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we have Category:The, Category:Couple, Category:Pair, Category:Trio, Category:Many, Category:Several, Category:Thousand, Category:Million, Category:Red, Category:White, Category:Blue, Category:Hot, Category:Warm, etc. Though there is a Category:Cold. Category:Polygons seems to cover everything that's been placed in these categories. wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 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.

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: Option 1 – rename Organisations to Organizations. There is consensus that consistency is needed one way or the other, and the application of the quoted policies is inconclusive. I'm giving weight to the Z spelling used in English publications by Greece, e.g. at http://www.mfa.gr/en/foreign-policy/greece-in-international-organizations/. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Rationale: Since these categories have the same national scope, they should be named consistantly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 – follow the lead of Category:Organizations based in Greece. Oculi (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• OPtion 2 -- In Europe, it is usual to use English orthography. This will apply for example to EU documents. This will not change due to Brexit, since Ireland will remain an EU member. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 – follow the lead of Category:Organizations based in Greece, and also choose the one involving renaming of fewer categories. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 To match the current spelling of parent Category:Organizations based in Greece. Greece has no WP:TIES to any particular variety of English. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no strong opinion either way about which one should be preferred in the case of Greece — I happen to live in a z country, but I'm supportive of the principle that non-English-speaking countries should generally hew to the closest available major dialect of English (Europe=British, Americas=US or Canadian, Asia=Australian or Indian, Africa=South African, etc.) But in this case I would suggest that regardless of whether s or z is ultimately chosen here, the other spelling should be maintained and/or created as categoryredirects to capture any categorization errors. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2, because as noted above, European countries without significant native English use will typically follow UK usage. We can always rename "Organizations based in Greece" while we're at it. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I'm a big supporter of WP:TIES but it specifically applies to English-speaking nations ("strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation)". Greece is not an English-speaking nation so it does not apply. In this case WP:RETAIN is arguably more relevant - "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change...An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". The spelling "Organizations in Greece" was first introduced in 2006. Interestingly, the -ize spelling is from the original Greek. Additionally, if you search the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs website you will see they favour the -ize spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RETAIN is only for when there's an established standard in place. With this group of categories, you've conclusively demonstrated that there is not a standard — your whole reason for this and a few similar batch nominations is basically "these countries aren't using a standard", if I remember rightly. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of trying to create national-level consistency here - see User:Od Mishehu/org consistency, where I'm keeping track of all countries needing this, and my progress. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:56, 28 April 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.

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) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tourist information radio stations in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Tourist information stations are a class of radio station that is not presumed notable per WP:NMEDIA anymore, with the result that nearly all of this category's former contents have been deleted at AFD. Only two articles remain, both of which are stations that clear NMEDIA because they also aired more conventional programming formats at other times. Which means that this is now a WP:SMALLCAT for two stations which aren't defined by the fact that they happened to air a non-notable format for a small portion of their broadcast histories. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 28 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.

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) 16:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Spike (TV network) cartoons to Category:Spike (TV network) shows

Nominator's rationale: Spike only ever aired 3 cartoons in its history. No reason to subdivide like this when the network is not known for having had cartoons on it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 28 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.