May 6
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Category:Reform synagogues in the United States Virgin Islands
- Propose deleting Category:Reform synagogues in the United States Virgin Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with 1 entry which is also in parent category. Zerach (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LBEF alumni
- Nominator's rationale: No relevant content. Just one, unreferenced, article, about LBEF. Rathfelder (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "This category includes currently enrolled or already passed out students of Lord Buddha Education Foundation" - none have passed out as yet, it seems. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential Keep but Rename to expand abbreviation. I am not sure if we should classify this as a High School or Tertiary College or a hybrid of these, but in either case an alumni category would be permissible. The problem is that we only have a main article and no notable alumni. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Montenegrin American
- Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Only one, eponymous article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Montenegrin Canadian
- Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Only one, eponymous, article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Casey Bates
- Nominator's rationale: I have nominated Casey Bates at AFD thus am also nominating the category as GNG fail b/c no WP:RS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Bates Theredproject (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to have produced a lot of albums for someone allegedly of no consequence. Oculi (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Producer is not notable, no SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Categories are not reliant on the creation of an article in the name space. While WP may have decided that Casey Bates is not personally notable, he has produced 22 albums which are notable enough to be included in WP. The need to collect these albums together by producer has been established. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the claims of his production are cited. Most are Original Research. I have also nominated a round of the albums for deletion.--Theredproject (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being produced by someone who is not notable cannot be a defining category. Were it so, then the producer would be notable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Golden Age of Hollywood actors
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 10#Category:Golden Age of Hollywood: too subjective and vague. The decades in film and actors by nationality categories have clearer scope and should be used instead. DrKay (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging either:
- or
- Nominator's rationale: Regardless of what decisions are made at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC#Adjective, there doesn't seem to be any distinction in scope between these two categories, and they each have the same two parent categories: Category:Association football seasons by country and Category:Football in North Macedonia.
- So I don't see any purpose in retaining both. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there is a great deal of controversy about whether 'Macedonian' is the denonym (cf 'Northern Irish' - Category:Seasons in Northern Irish football has somehow survived so far). Oculi (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge all to Category:Seasons in North Macedonian football with a headnote to the effect that it includes the period before the country was renamed. This is standard practice with merged and renamed entities, a principle originally developed for alumni categories for renamed or merged colleges. The individual seasons should not be renamed, because they reflect the name of the time. This is all about the same place, a renamed country not a new one. We have also applied this to colonies/republics that have changed names, such as Upper Volta/Burkino Faso. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That is why I proposed one other of the two existing names, both of which appear to be acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFC is currently in the process of being closed. We may well follow the outcome of that closure for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment -- The present name of the country is North Macedonia. That change is not controversial. As I stated, this is a renamed country, not a new one. As a matter of precedent, categories since the change of name should use the current name. Those for older periods should use the former one. But they should share a parent with the current name. In this case a demonym is appropriate which is obviously North Macedonian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian supercentenarians
- Nominator's rationale: There were only two people there. I moved them to appropriate parent categories Category:Indian centenarians and Category:Male supercentenarians. — JFG talk 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there were 5 acc to Google. Reduced by edits such as this. Oculi (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because those articles were miscategorized; unverified longevity claims go in Category:Longevity claims (for 110-130 year old claims) or Category:Longevity myths. Two of the removed pages are now in the former, Habib Miyan is in the latter. Supercentenarians categories are for verified cases. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by category creator - I created the category as I had an Indian supercentenarian to categorise and a separate category per nationality appeared to be the standard. I have no personal preference but I would say rather than adjust this single item, some form of standard needs to be in place to categorise all the other nationalities. Periglio (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2020
- Propose deleting:
- Nominator's rationale: It can't have been introduced in 2020, we're not there yet! Ditto Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2021. Proposed to open in... might work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Official documents
- Nominator's rationale: rename for more clarity on the scope of these categories. "Official" is rather vague, "government" is more to the point. See also this earlier discussion from 2010, closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 deleted per WP:G7. Created by me to fill a redlink in Special:WantedCategories, without spotting misnaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: same year on both sides of hyphen Naraht (talk) 02:54, 6 May 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:Round cities
- Propose Deleting Category:Round cities
- Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:TRIVIALCAT or WP:V/WP:OR
- We don't have a main article on a round city but the header of the category itself offers the following explanation:
- "Cities that were designed as circle, notably those of Mesopotamia and Persia. This does not include cities like Ctesiphon, the round-ness of which was due to natural growth of the city rather than deliberate design from the beginning."
- The Round city of Baghdad is a promising start but from there the "round"-ness of articles in this category quickly become less defining: Moscow mentions transport "ring" roads, Darab had earthworks arranged in a "circle", while Erbil has a citadel shaped in an "oval". Maybe there was a trend with "roundness" in urban planning at some point but we need more verifiable content before start a category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- In a period when cities were walled, they were often round or polygonal, unless their boundary was dictated by other physical features, such as a river or the shape of the hill on which they were built. A circular city will have the shortest possible wall, compared to the area enclosed, thus limiting the length of wall to be defended against enemies. This is thus not trivial. Cities with a circular ring road may have this because it was built along the line of the city walls. This is thus not TRIVIAL. I do not see this as a case of WP:OR in its usual context of invented facts. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The geometric shape that a city's original plan (or development growth) happen to take on is not a defining characteristic of the city — even if a city started out round in ancient times, it didn't necessarily always stay round. Yes, the Round City of Baghdad is a different matter, because it's actually called that — but that does not mean we need a category for every city on earth that happens to be roughly circular in shape, but whose articles feature no content about why the shape might be significant at all. And a city having a ring road doesn't prove a damn thing about its planned or actual shape, either, because the ring road doesn't necessarily follow the shape of the city itself — cities that are square, rectangular, and/or irregularly-shaped because of a lake or river can still have ring roads too. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]