Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

Category:BadBadNotGood

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) 06:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Eponymous category for a band without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one; all that's here is the usual troika of eponym, albums category and songs category. As always, every band that exists does not automatically get one of these — an eponymous category is only justified if there's a large volume of spinoff content that needs band-related categorization beyond the standard schema (e.g. Category:The Beatles, where there are also books and films and wives and concert tours and Brian Epsteins and George Martins and Apple Recordses and on and so forth), thus making it necessary from a navigational perspective. But the volume of content needed to justify this simply isn't present in this case. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 30 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.

Category:St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

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. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only an eponymous article and a subcat that is nominated below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging talk page with projects to generate alerts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The fact that the first Metropolitan of Kiev was its hegumen does not merit having a category for it, unless we can get more articles on its clergy. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's potential for expansion. For instance, I just added St. Panteleimon's Cathedral which is described as being an offshoot of the Monastery.--Jahaza (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding one article doesn't demonstrate the potential for expansion to a viable category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There is no prospect of this being a viable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 6 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.

Category:Hegumens of St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

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. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagging talk page with projects to generate alerts
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The fact that the first Metropolitan of Kiev was its hegumen does not merit having a category for it, unless we can get more articles on its clergy. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 1 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.

Category:6th-century BC Persian people

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. Although there is not unanimity here, I don't see any consensus that we should keep both, and "Iranian" is the more established hierarchy. Looking at the current contents and parent categories, I confirm that no merging is necessary. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redundant to Category:6th-century BC Iranian people, which is formed according to the rules, i.e. based on the current name of the country, and is part of a category tree. Articles need to be merged into that category, which is already present on many of them. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection of modern Iran to this? We do not do anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not anachronism at all, the name Iran (Eran->Arya) is significantly more accurate, and popular as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Debresser is wrong as to the convention, which is that people should be categorised according to the polities of the time, not of today. If there is a problem it is with Category:6th-century BC Iranian people. I so not know enough of the history of the period, but recall that there were Medes and Persians. The Persian king Cyrus the Great conquered the Medes (and several other kingdoms). I do not have a clear solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There were the Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Khwarazmians, Sogdians, Scythians (whom not all were under Achaemenid rule) etc etc. The 6th-century BC Persian people basically gives limited opinions, not to mention 'Persia' has never been the name of Iran, but the name of a province in the southern part of the country instead (
    Fars). Calling people like the Medes or Scythians for 'Persian' is simply inaccurate.--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Even if Peterkingiron is correct about my first argument being opposite of common practice, in this case we have Category:Iranian people by century, which has all centuries from 7th-century BCE to 21st-century CE. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peter is absolutely correct; if Iran and Iraq rule the area of Babylonia, this doesn't make Babylonian peoples into Iranians or Iraqis. The people of the 6th-century BC were people of the Achaemenid Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 16:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories like Category:6th-century BC Iranian people is only meant for ethnic Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should keep those separated imo. Not all Iranians lived under Achaemenid rule, especially in the later centuries, when a lot of them lived under different dynasties. We could create a Category:6th-century BC Achaemenid people, but it shouldn't get merged with the other categories. Generally it would just get really messy if we followed that idea. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alternative, we shouldn't confuse peoples with dynasties, we don't have
    Habsburg Empire either. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 11 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.

Category:U.S. Army All-American Bowl football players

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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 28. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NONDEF. The U.S. Army All-American Bowl is a high school football all-star game. No notable athlete would mark playing in it as a career high point. TM 11:51, 30 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.

Terms with Arabic origin

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. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These have been already listifed in Category:Lists of English words of Arabic origin. Brandmeistertalk 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Brandmeister: Listification by itself is not a reason for deleting a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • why to delete this category? it is based on etymology section of articles and on etymology entries at wiktionary. so please move it to appropriate name rather than deletion. regards--مصعب (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia so we should categorize articles by their topic; not by the etymology of the topic's name (or, to be more precise, the name that has been chosen as the article's title). See previous discussions such as
    articles about words etc.DexDor (talk) 05:50, 10 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.

Category:Ajay Devgan

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the parent article's recent move. See Talk:Ajay Devgn. Skr15081997 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: Per Skr15081997. Why didn't GeoffreyT2000 moved the category also when he moved the article and the template? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Support but leave cat-redirect: the main article starts: Ajay Devgan (born Vishal Veeru Devgan on 2 April 1969),[2] also credited as Ajay Devgn. Clearly both spellings have been used. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_30&oldid=1074283775"