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.
Oppose. Categories are to bring articles together that have a significant or notable common attributes, for songs, the songwriters are such common attributes. The existence of an article is not relevant to categories and there are no guidelines supporting the view of the nominator (that an article must exist to support a category). There have been, however, many instances where a category has been nominated for this reason and nearly all have failed. The last relevant nomination was Songs written by D.O.E. and in light of that decision, I have no objection to this category being renamed Songs written by Kirshnik Ball, if there is further agreement, bearing in mind that Takeoff was a member of Migos and known as such.
NB I am the creator of the category, which existed before the creation of the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, most articles in this category do not mention Takeoff. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 18 March 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:Non-commercial use only images
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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer that conflates files tagged for speedy deletion with legitimately used non-free files. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and convert this into a maintenance/hidden category to be populated by ((Non-free with NC)). Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 16 March 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:Presidents of the University of Santiago, Chile Student Federation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:51, 11 March 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.
American Latter Day Saints from Missouri
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.
Hello - Let me suggest that we delete Category:American Latter Day Saints from Missouri, which is currently empty. Its purpose is served by Category:Latter Day Saints from Missouri, which follows the naming convention of all the sibling "Latter Day Saints from _______" categories. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since anyone from Missouri is an American. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This probably could have been speedied as an empty category. It was a mistake creation on my part anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 19 March 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.
Political prisoners
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.
Nominator's rationale: the term "political prisoner" is inherently and irredeemably POV. Nearly everyone agrees that some people are political prisoners, but there is no accepted, neutral way to define whether any individual is a political prisoner.
Keep There are many terms which could be viewed as POV but we allow in Wikipedia because WP:RS use them. For example, the term "terrorist" is a contentious label, as WP:LABEL states, but there are hundreds of articles/categories/templates which use the terms terrorist/terrorism. The term "political prisoner" is widely used by reliable sources and we have had an article on the subject, Political prisoner, for the last 16 years. If the article is acceptable why aren't categories? If they are reliable sources which state that someone is a political prisoner why can't we categorise them as such on Wikipedia?--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Obi2canibe: See WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. We have plenty of well-sourced articles on notable topics which do not lend themselves to an NPOV binary test for individual examples. For any given claimed political prisoner, there are reliable sources for and against that label. See e.g. Leonard Peltier, Julian Assange, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands.
WP:NPOV is v clear that where sources disagree, we do not simply take some sort of majoritarian assessment of sources; instead we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"
Categories are a binary on/of switch: an article is either in a category or nor in it. Categories do not allow us to say Category:Political prisoner according to US mainstream news except Fox, European news except Ruritanian, no Asian news, 56.7% of political scientists polled by PollsRus in 2007, but only 14.3% of academics of the Ruritanian Studies Association in a 2016 survey .. but per WP:NPOV that would be the only valid way to do it.
In such cases we have a topic category for articles on the concept, but do not have a set category of examples. Parallels include:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Delete -- Unless someone can provide a robust criterion for inclusion. Possibly criteria used by Amnesty International might be used. Few people are political prisoners in the eyes of their captors: most are imprisoned on the basis of being guilty of some criminal offence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no widely agreed upon definition of political prisoner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 19 March 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:Zaporozhian Cossacks
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.
Nominator's rationale:rename in order to distinct the two categories more clearly: the first is a history category (see Zaporozhian Host), the second is a biographies category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 11 March 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:Ukrainian Cossack nobility
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.
Mykhailo Khanenko was the son of Zaporozhian Cossack Stepan Khanenko (says the article), how would he then not be a Zaporozhian Cossack himself? The word Ukraine may have existed for long, but it was not a common name until Ukrainian nationalism emerged in the 19th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Yes I agree the category should be renamed to Zaporozhian Cossacks the term Ukrainian is an anachronistic nationality during the 17th-century as the native population were referred to as Ruthenians. Shotgun pete (talk) 1:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Inserting "the" in the category name sounds reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 1 April 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:Aspire (political party) councillors
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.
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. This is a small local party represented on Tower Hamlets council. Being a local councillor is not inherently notable, so the 10 current councillors are unlikely to ever get their own articles. Ergo, as per WP:SMALLCAT, this should be deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused. Number57 13:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty category with no potential members likely to meet notability guidelines. Ralbegen (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local councillors are typically NN, so that there is little chance of it being adequately populated. Perhaps Merge to Category:Tower Hamlets councillors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 11 March 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:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors
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:keep. Delete !voters far outnumber keep !voters, but the nominator's blatant misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT was accepted by most keep !voters, leaving their !votes ill-founded in policy. For the record, WP:SMALLCAT's current version says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (underlining added by me)--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a former grouping (not even a formal political party) on Tower Hamlets council. Two-thirds of them have now formed a new party, Aspire. The only person in this category is Rabina Khan, who left the Group before Aspire was created (and has formed a rival party, People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets). The other former members of this group are unlikely to ever get articles as being a local councillor is not inherently notable. Ergo, as per WP:SMALLCAT, this should be deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here as the categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. It's useful have a category system which separates out councillors with leaders of the party thus providing navigational links to Wikipedia pages.
Also, not being a formal political party has no bearing on Wikipedia, whether the article is notable does. The argument that other members of the group unlikely to get articles also not a valid argument to delete either but just chrystal balling. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per my reply at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Leaders_of_Tower_Hamlets_First, your argument about "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" appears to me to lack any basis in policy or consensus. On the specific point raised here, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to the content of articles, not to discussions about what categories to have. It is entirely reasonable to make a judgement about the likely future notability of articles in this context. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless overcategorisation – Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group politicians is enough (the subject is already in Category:Councillors in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and I don't think the a category is needed for the one councillor that is notable enough for an article. Number57 13:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local councillors are typically NN, so that there is little chance of it being adequately populated. Perhaps Merge to [:Category:Tower Hamlets councillors]]. The workings of local politics mean that councillors who do not belong to a major party have to work together as an independent Group, because seats on committees are allocated proportionately. That does not mean that the group members agree about anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group politicians, since the parent category hasn't been nominated the article should still be kept there. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for pointing that out, Marcocapelle. Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group politicians also has only one member article (Rabina Khan). As a former local government group, it is pretty synonymous with Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors. I would welcome input on whether it should also be nominated. Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: That is a tough question because some editors think that politicians by party tree really is a case of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Personally I would support a further upmerge, as I do not see the point of keeping large amounts of very poorly populated categories (esp in many small countries) and besides we currently have many politicians who have not been categorized by party and I can't see any harm there. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 12 March 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:Leaders of People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets
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:keep. Delete !voters far outnumber keep !voters, but the nominator's blatant misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT was accepted by most keep !voters, leaving their !votes ill-founded in policy. For the record, WP:SMALLCAT's current version says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (underlining added by me)--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Leaders of People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a small, new, local party. It has only ever had one leader so far. If it persists and has future leaders, they will probably not be notable as local councillours are not inherently notable. Thus, delete as per WP:SMALLCAT. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here as the categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. It's useful have a category system which separates out councillors with leaders of the party thus providing navigational links to Wikipedia pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per my reply at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Leaders_of_Tower_Hamlets_First, your argument about "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" appears to me to lack any basis in policy or consensus. On the specific point raised here, you say it is "useful [to] have a category system which separates out councillors with leaders of the party". However Category:Leaders of People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets and Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors both only have one member article, the same Rabina Khan. What navigational aim is being helped here?
WP:SMALLCAT does say, "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." However, I don't read "a small number of […] articles" to mean one, nor is leadership of PATH "a notable political office", nor do I see a "realistic potential for growth".Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless overcategorisation – Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets politicians is enough and I don't think the categories are needed to sort the one leader from the one councillor (actually the same person) that is notable enough for an article (the subject should be placed in Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom instead – and perhaps worth noting the contents of that category, particularly the point that apart from the two Tower Hamlets groups, no other local party has its own leadership categories). Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets councillors should be deleted for the same reason. Number57 13:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, as there is no realistic potential for growth and leadership of a minor local political party does not constitute a notable political office. Ralbegen (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local councillors are typically NN, so that there is little chance of it being adequately populated. Perhaps Merge to Category:Tower Hamlets councillors. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets politicians, since the parent category hasn't been nominated the article should still be kept there. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 11 March 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:Leaders of Tower Hamlets First
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:keep. Delete !voters far outnumber keep !voters, but the nominator's blatant misrepresentation of WP:SMALLCAT was accepted by most keep !voters, leaving their !votes ill-founded in policy. For the record, WP:SMALLCAT's current version says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (underlining added by me) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Leaders of Tower Hamlets First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Tower Hamlets First was a short-lived party, now wound up. It only ever had one leader, thus there is no point in a category, as per WP:SMALLCATBondegezou (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here as the categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. It's useful have a category system which separates out councillors with leaders of the party thus providing navigational links to Wikipedia pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTanbircdq, thank you for a prompt reply. You have referred several times to "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" that overrides WP:SMALLCAT. However, there is nothing in the guidance that says WP:SMALLCAT should be overridden in this manner. Nor can WP:LOCALCONSENSUS override a general editing guideline willy-nilly. For that matter, can you point to some Talk page discussion explaining what this "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" is, or any support for your application of it? I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Can_I_get_some_help_with_some_tiny_categories? and the only other person in the discussion there, Number 57 does not support your position. Forgive me if I have missed discussion elsewhere. WP:SMALLCAT does say, "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." However, Tower Hamlets First is no more, so this category has no "potential for growth". Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needless overcategorisation – Category:Tower Hamlets First politicians is enough and I don't think the categories are needed to sort the one leader from the one councillor that are notable enough for articles (the subject should be placed in Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom instead – and perhaps worth noting the contents of that category, particularly the point that apart from the two Tower Hamlets groups, no other local party has its own leadership categories). Category:Tower Hamlets First councillors should be deleted for the same reason. Number57 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Local councillors are typically NN, so that there is little chance of it being adequately populated. Perhaps Merge to Category:Tower Hamlets councillors. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Tower Hamlets First politicians is the first in this related group of categories that has more than one member. It has two! With the party wound up, growth can only happen if one of the other involved people gains notability for something else. I would've thought WP:SMALLCAT still applies, but happy to hear other views. Should we consider it now, or leave it for a later discussion? Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 12 March 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:Psychiatry organizations
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.
Nominator's rationale: Two sides of the same coin Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions, isn't mental health a lot broader than psychiatry? Within the countries I also see subcats about addiction and autism, which are usually unrelated to psychiatry. And if merged, shouldn't the country subcategories be nominated in conjunction? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree. Psychiatry is about the medical treatment of mental illness. There are also other treatments, such as counselling, which might be better classified as psychology. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 18 March 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:Depression organizations
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.
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined. None of the organisations are restricted to depression. 2/4 are related to bipolar disorder, which is a rather different condition. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Mental health organizations. We definitely don't need to be subcategorizing them by whether they concentrate on depression or bipolar disorder, but the parent category is appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: lets find something useful to do. First, Wikipedia is still evolving. Let it remain to aid future growth. Second, several times more people search on google by "depression" (which is a centuries old valid english word, not a slang) and not by the more recently minted jargon phrase "mental health disorder". Third, upmerge is not advised because catch-all term is too generic e.g. we can not upmerge various types of Indian breads such as Naan, Roti, Wrap roti, Rumali roti, Makki di roti, Roti canai, Paratha into pancake, or further upmerge into bread? Where is the end? Shall we merge whole wikipedia into one aticle with one sentence and one category? Fourth, about none of the organisations being restricted to depression, why those have to be restricted to just depression because an article may belong to multiple categories and does not have to be restricted to just one, this is not a valid argument. Fifth, this is just a newly created category articles in which will expand with time, only if over-zealous custodians let it stay. No deletion please. Sixth, if someone has created a category then give them goodfaith. Seventh, why waste time in such trivial stuff when this time can be utilised in creating new content? Too much time, very little to do? Wikipedia has thousands of redlinks awaiting to be created, we all must go there instead of wasting time here in being excessively bureaucratic about this stuff. Wikipedia is turning into well-intentioned over-zealous million-unmanageable-rules ghetto, which is slowly killing it. Please use self-filters, is my bureaucratic proposal adding any value? Return on time invested (ROI) rule says, everyone here should ask themselves, instead of commenting here or making such proposal to destroy someone's work, how many more wonderfully useful things they might have created. What do we wanna be - creator versus destroyer (of others work)? Finally, watch this short funny video with english subtitles from the movie 3 Idiots. Are you doing something that excited you and other editors or just being butchers with too much time on hand? PS:, I am not related to the person who create this category. I randomly arrived here. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't retain, only one of the four articles is about depression specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>Merge with Category:New Deal agencies.</joke> Upmerge; depression is an aspect of mental health. If we end up with a lot of depression organizations, we can always recreate. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 16 March 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:Operas set in Iberia
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.
Nominator's rationale: All the operas in this category are set in Spain. Similar categories exist for virtually all other countries in Europe. Smerus (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually forget this. I have now reclassified all the operas that were here as Category:Operas set in Spain or Category:Operas set in Portugal as appropriate, and have made both of these categories of Category:Operas set in Iberia. Sorry to have troubled y'all.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we usually do not have Iberia categories as a parent for Spain and Portugal and there is no particular reason why operas should have one. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply adds an extra unnecessary level to the category tree. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by all means delete as I have transferred out all consituents.-Smerus (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If everything now has a more appropriate national category, then this is redundnat and can be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; not all of these are set in Spain or Portugal. Le Cid (opera), for example, portrays Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, who lived in Castile, in Muslim Saragossa, and in his own domain of Valencia, but not in Spain — he died in 1099, or more than one-third of a millennium before the marriage of the Catholic Monarchs that first unified their realms and created Spain. The ambiguous-name issue could easily be resolved with a rename to "in the Iberian Peninsula", and if you really want to exclude things in Spain and Portugal, just add the date to the category title and set the end period to pre-1492, when the Siege of Granada ended the last Muslim kingdom, or pre-1524, the completion of the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as a matter of fact, Le Cid (opera) is set in Burgos and Granada, both of which are clearly located in present-day Spain. It is not located in "Iberia". Even if the category were re-named as suggested, Le Cid (opera) would still be categorized as Category:Operas set in Spain and the re-named category would continue to be redundant. Editors could if they liked set up subcategories of Category:Operas set in Spain such as Category: Operas set in Castile, etc. - and they are welcome to do so if they wish. That has no bearing on the redundancy of the category under dicussion here.--Smerus (talk) 11:01, 22 March 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.
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:Washington Senators (MLB 1961–1971). (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has two subcategories both of which are already categorized 'Washington Senators (1961–1971)'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:49, 11 March 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:Turkmenistan dentists
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:keep without prejudice against opening a fresh discussion with a batch nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to ever have more than one member. --Michael WhiteT·C 02:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS to a substantial degree. Unless there is a mass nomination of these categories, Turkmenistan would be unfairly singled out for deletion and a legitimate entry thus will be missing among those at Category:Dentists by nationality. A glance at the entries appearing therein will confirm that among the 64 subcategories, 24 (including China and Indonesia) have only one member, 12 have only two members and 8 have only three members. —Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Then delete them all. They can be re-created if we ever get to the point where there are enough articles to warrant these categories existing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of an established scheme. The problem is that a lot of the subcats are very small because most dentists are NN. If not kept, a large number of the subcats of Category:Dentists by nationality need to be upmerged to Category:Dentists and a national people of category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 11 March 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.