< July 20 July 22 >

July 21

Category:Tarnalelesz

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) 06:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Unlikely to be more. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2019 (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:Tarnaméra

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) 06:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One, eponymous article, about a small village in Hungary. Unlikely to grow. Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (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:Disney+ international programming

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) 06:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There aren't enough articles about Disney+ programs to justify a subcategory; also, it's unclear where "international" refers to, since the service will be available in multiple countries. Trivialist (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2019 (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:Participants in the Savoy Conference

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. MER-C 09:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for John Wallis or William Sancroft).  Example of a (slightly) similar previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_5#Category:TED_Conference_Attendees.  Note: there are lists of people in the Savoy Conference article. DexDor (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note about the existence of a list is just a note (not the reason for deletion); it's common to add such a note at a CFD because editors may consider converting the category to a list. The (main) test of whether categorization is appropriate is WP:NONDEFINING (not whether it's conceivable that someone could use the category). If an article doesn't even mention a characteristic (Anthony Tuckney is another example) then it falls a long way short of being a defining characteristic. The TED CFD is an example CFD of categorizing people for having been at a conference; I agree that it's a different sort of conference, but it's similar categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree at all: you are applying recent criteria to a 17th century occasion that happens to use the same word. In fact I would say for the non-conformists invited, the invitation defined them as recognised religious leaders. I note that WP:CATDEF says "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article", not "the central concept": it seems that WP:OVERCAT does make it the leading concept. "Do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles" is the actual nutshell there, which I would agree with; but the piece starts with something on why it is "conceivable that someone could use the category". I'm happy to work on verification of the categorisation of the articles, because that would be helpful. But consider this: Category:Translators of the King James Version is the kind of category that makes Wikipedia popular and useful. The function of the Savoy Conference was to redraft the Anglican Prayer Book after the upheavals of a civil war. The category we are talking about is directly analogous. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're doing a good reductio ad absurdum job here. A claim of "overcategorisation" really needs more support than a guideline: there is no evidence here that anyone is "overcategorised". (Now, why not try Winston Churchill if the issue bothers you.) Participation in a historically significant event should be respected for what it is. I believe strongly that no Wikimedia process is ever exempt from looking further than guidelines. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other reasons not to keep categories, see WP:OCAT. In addition, allowing too many categories will lead to too much category clutter at the bottom of articles, which basically nullifies the benefit of categories. Many biographies already contain too much category clutter. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2019 (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:History of the papacy

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: do not rename. MER-C 09:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Talk:History of the papacy failed such a rename, arguably at least such a rename would be motivated per scope reasons in the main category, if taking all the diversity of entries into account? PPEMES (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess fundamentally the concern is that we only have Holy See and Pope to refer to. We don't have Papacy. That's why. PPEMES (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have History of the papacy. Oculi (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you agree that Holy See is a slightly broader scope than Papacy, though? PPEMES (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few examples that arguably may be taxonomically more associated with the Holy see rather than directly with the Pope personally: Category:Sedevacantism, Category:Western Schism, Category:History of the Roman Curia? PPEMES (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider History of the papacy to be synonymous with History of the Holy See, not synonymous with History of the popes (personally). For the latter we simply have Category:Popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's your comments on the differences between Pope and Holy See, as reflected in Template:Papacy and Template:Holy See? PPEMES (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the difference in the templates but it's not easy to define the difference. It is even more difficult to see how we might apply it to history categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the most important difference that "Papacy" tends to pertain to things specifically, personally and at least nominally related to the current or previous popes, whereas "Holy See" pertains to both this but also to stuff related to the pope's episcopal see and sovereign entity in a larger, slightly more personally independent sense? Hence including offices (that the pope has never visited personally), staff (that the pope has never met), activities and events (where the pope has not and never intends to participate) of which some may be specifically, personally or nominally related but not all? Take for instance a nuntiate office in country X in the 19th century. While its very Papal diplomacy arguably forms part of the scope of history of the papacy, all activities and premises of the nuntio along with staff may not be. However, as part of the history of foreign relations of the Holy See, it should at least be part of the history of the Holy See, shouldn't it? PPEMES (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a question really of changing the name for the same thing, but a rename to a different scope. C.f. Template:Papacy and Template:Holy See. If you want to change the name of the article Holy See, I suggest you start at its talk page. PPEMES (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2019 (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:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients

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. MER-C 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Victoria A. Fromkin Lifetime Service Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, in a number of articles the award is not even mentioned. In addition there is not an article about the award itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (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:Kenneth L. Hale Award recipients

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. MER-C 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. Many articles do not even mention the prize. In addition there is not even an article about the award itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (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:Grand Cross of the Royal Confraternity of San Teotonio

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. MER-C 09:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Grand Cross of the Royal Confraternity of San Teotonio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. In addition there is not even an article about this award. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:01, 21 July 2019 (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.

Imperators totius Hispaniae

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. MER-C 09:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Imperators totius Hispaniae‎
  • Propose deleting Category:9th-century Imperators totius Hispaniae‎
  • Propose deleting Category:10th-century Imperators totius Hispaniae
  • Propose deleting Category:11th-century Imperators totius Hispaniae‎
  • Propose deleting Category:12th-century Imperators totius Hispaniae‎
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, this concerns a self-assigned title by some monarchs of León, Castile and Navarra, but the title is not normally used by historians to refer to these monarchs. No listification needed, the main article Imperator totius Hispaniae‎ already contains all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso VII is very commonly called emperor, although he is probably the only one. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (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:Military vehicles by decade of introduction

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 but the 1940s stay sub-divided between Category:Military vehicles introduced in 1940–1944 and Category:Military vehicles introduced in 1945–1949. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Parallels the recent changes to "aircraft by decade" categories, and matches better the parent categories Category:Vehicles introduced in the 2010s etc. Note that this upmerges Category:Military vehicles 1940–1944 and Category:Military vehicles 1945–1949 which creates a problem as they are subcategories of Category:World War II vehicles and Category:Military vehicles of the Cold War period respectively; possibly solved by retaining them as subcategories? Hugo999 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for the notification! In broad terms I'm in agreement with the terms "1900s", "1910s", and so on – instead of "1900-1909" et cetera. But it's the "introduced in" part, that I don't quite agree with.. I always understood the current wording of these categories to mean both "introduced in" and "active, in production and/or in service" during ! -- --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment But "in use" would I think be too broad, stick to "introduced". The T-34 tank of 1940 was used over several decades (and may still be in use in obscure corners of Africa or Asia!) The standard Lee Enfield rifle used by the British Army from 1895 to 1957 is probably still in use somewhere. Hugo999 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (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:Urdu languages

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. MER-C 09:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no such thing as "Urdu languages" or "Fiji Urdu". – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:00, 21 July 2019 (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:9th-century Kings of Germany

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. MER-C 13:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual title of these kings, they were all kings of East Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2019 (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.

Terrorism in Asia by city

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. MER-C 10:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are intermediate container categories with very few subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2019 (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:Recipients of the Golden Rose

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 3#Category:Recipients of the Golden Rose

Category:Korean cats

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. MER-C 09:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary to break up Korean and South Korean cats when everything falls into the South Korean category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (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:Survivors of assassination attempts

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: speedy delete (G4). MER-C 10:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per CFD in 2018, non-defining (e.g. for Bill Clinton and Winston Churchill) and subjective - how close does the assassin have to get for it to be counted as an assassination attempt? What about an attempted attack on a building/city containing multiple politicians etc?  As another editor has asked on the talk page "Do we include kings etc who were severely injured with lethal intent in battles but survived?".  See also recent recent discussion. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2019 (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:Honorary citizens of Seoul

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. MER-C 09:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Michael J. Sandel).  See previous CFDs e.g. for Hamburg. Note: there is a list. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2019 (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:Summer kigo

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. MER-C 09:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining categories of different objects and phenomena, that may be mentioned in Japanese poetry. There is already a List of kigo. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. encompasses such a range of topics that it is of little use for finding anything. Murray Langton (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Swimming pool?! Seriously?! Many of these (like the one mentioned) are not even related to Japanese poetry! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I came from Matriculation and have no idea why this category would exist. Stick with the list. |→ Spaully ~talk~  08:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify These are justified as lists of kigo, but kigo isn't of sufficiently strong relation to all of them to justify the categories. Also this should be all of them, not merely the handful where that category would be justified (some are strongly related to Japanese culture), as an inconsistency there would be worse.
Also Dongfeng is a disambig page. Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came here from sumo. These categories seem to have no real use and the topics no real connection to each other. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain My rationale was to create English counterparts to the Japanese categories, but I understand the confusion as the Japanese and English terminology doesn't quite have the same poetic flavor in all cases. They're simply meant to evoke a sense of the respective season ("pool" is recognized as kigo in contemporary Japanese poetry, as also implied by its ja counterpart). Perhaps this should only be kept if someone who is more confidently knowledgeable about Japanese poetry could suggest a way to make it fit (ex. only categorizing Japanese terms). Invokingvajras (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, not defining and of no real use. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2019 (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