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:Cultural depictions of Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 8#Category:Anastasia (1997 film)

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. MER-C 18:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Broken heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A weird category with no clear criteria for inclusion. At present, it seems to be mainly fictional works/songs about heartbreak, with a painting thrown in for good measure. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems the nominator didn't look at the entries. Not "a painting thrown in for good measure" (as if one painting was snuck in the back door in the middle of the night) but three plays, two paintings, and the principal page Broken heart. The linked category is that of songs about broken hearts. So we have plays, paintings, and songs, all focused on a well-known topic and all cultural depictions of individuals having broken hearts, and the principal page of a notable topic, "broken heart". Randy Kryn (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF and possibly WP:OR, most articles do not mention that is about a broken heart. Besides it is very unusual to have a category with such a diversity of types of works. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. We could have categories for dodgy livers, or malfunctioning kidneys, which at least might be more objectively defined. Rathfelder (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2020 (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. MER-C 17:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging the following into Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Albania
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Bulgaria
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Czech Republic
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Germany
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Poland
  • Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni, Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: We don't divide alumni categories by national origin of students, and even if so these are problematically titled. Simply putting the country name at the end is ambiguous, and Czech Republic and Germany did not exist at the time, they were Czechoslovakia and East Germany. Spokoyni (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somehow -- but I wonder if the non-Soviet alumni might not be kept separate. The Germany (actually East Germany) category would in fact be quite large enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2020 (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/merge Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Dont appear to be any articles for other continents

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify an intermediate category.

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf in the United States by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only substantial content is Category:Disc golf courses in Charlotte, North Carolina‎

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf courses in the United States by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify a by city subcategory

• Propose merging Category:Disc golf courses in Charlotte, North Carolina to Category:Disc golf courses in North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: It's the only content of the parent category.

• Propose deleting Category:Disc golf in Charlotte, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Disc golf courses in Charlotte, North Carolina - already in appropriate categories

• Propose merging Category:Disc golf courses by country to Category:Disc golf by country

Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to justify an intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I think the main problem of this tree is Category:Disc golf courses in Charlotte, North Carolina. Are we going to put almost all parks in the United States in a disc golf course category? Please delete that category first, per WP:NONDEF, and then clean up the rest of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by country, plus the individual country categories - delete the by continent, by city, and individual city categories and umperge any articles to the state or country. No need for by city lists yet, but by country seems plausible, given there are four country categories, and that the US one has courses in over 20 states listed. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, per nom. It does not look like other country categories but the US and Canada are viable. But the merge target for Category:Disc golf courses by country should be Category:Disc golf courses instead of Category:Disc golf by country, of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I cant see any actual articles about disc golf courses in any of the categories. They are populated by articles about parks. The disc golf course just gets a mention. There are probably bowling greens, tennis courses and cafes in the parks too. Doesnt seem to be defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I take this as agreeing with my earlier comment on Jan 11th. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2020 (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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting merging Category:Iranian Shia clerics who ceased wearing clerical clothing to Category:Iranian Shia clerics

Nominator's rationale: delete merge, the articles do not mention that these persons were clerics, it seems that they were and always have been secular politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: Oppose, this nomination had been opened without a clear rationale, and seemingly without proper knowledge about the subject. This is relatively a special matter in Iran, because Special Clerical Court uses banning clerical attire for certain individuals as a punishment, and those who have left the attire on their own will also gain a special status (That's why there is a Persian category for it). It is also noteworthy that many of them are not politicians (e.g. Panahi and Malekian), some are not secular but still are Islamist politicians (e.g. Larijani and Esmaeili). Pahlevun (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case it is not a defining characteristic because most of the articles do not even mention it. If this is a notable topic it is better to start writing an article about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Marcocapelle. If the articles don't mention it, it is unlikely to be WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The reason that we should have this category, is that there is a controversial –some say unconstitutional– law in Iran (Article 43 of Special Courts of the Clergy Law) that allows Special Clerical Court to a ban anti-establishment clerics from wearing this attire. This has made people who cease to wear it on their own will gain a special status in the popular culture (Read more here). Persian Wikipedia has the category, and there are sources that discuss it (e.g. [1]). Even politicians who do not wear the attire in public anymore have to explain themselves (e.g. 1: [2], 2: [3]) In the previous discussion, someone pointed that the articles don't mention it, I have added it to some of these the articles, supported by reliable sources (in English). I think the importance of this category has been explained. Pahlevun (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if this is a notable topic it is better to start writing an article about it. In any case it does not define the persons in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The category creator's objections don't appear relevant (do they understand wp categorization?). DexDor ^(talk) 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - certainly does not meet WP:DEFINING, is a topic barely mentioned in any of the articles in this category. There is also the issue of WP:OR, as the only basis many articles are included is that the photo of the subject is not deemed to be wearing "clerical clothing". I understand there are legal and cultural issues at play here, and maybe this issue of Shia clerics not wearing traditional clothing would make an intresting section or even article, but as a category this topic is unappropriated. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2020 (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: disperse and delete as specified in 'see' reference User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 8#Category:Greek Vampire Creatures

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. MER-C 17:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia:Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category, which consists of a template subcategory and two essays, seems artificially brought together and unnecessary. There exists Wikipedia administration focused on religion, but not specifically on Christianity—not counting WikiProject Christianity, which is not part of "Wikipedia administration". The essays are appropriately within the structure of Category:Wikipedia essays, and the subcategory within the structure of Category:Religion and belief templates. I see no value in this category. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Christianity Wikipedia administration or similar. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, note that Category:Wikipedia administration does not contain any other subcats by topic (with exception of autism, which should probably be nominated too). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia administration by topic. Note: I think that autism category is about Wikipedians with autism rather than about how Wikipedia deals with the topic of autism. DexDor ^(talk) 07:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I oversaw that. (As follow-up I edited the sort key to start with a space rather than an A.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Christianity Wikipedia administration to match subcats of Category:Wikipedia administration by topic. DexDor ^(talk) 07:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That, or merge the two pages (excluding the subcat) to Category:Religion Wikipedia administration for being too small (preferably the latter, actually). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, would prefer merging (the essays, not the subcat) over renaming due to size. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, merge is fine with me too. DexDor ^(talk) 06:28, 27 January 2020 (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. MER-C 17:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia:Treatment of wikipediholism to Category:Wikipedia:Wikipediholism

Nominator's rationale: There is no compelling organizational need to subdivide the lightly populated parent category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Marcocapelle. This is an entirely rational, it would seem, amendment to Wikipedian user categories that preserves the same spirit. Thank you, Black Falcon. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:54, 23 January 2020 (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.