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: We do not normally categorize airlines by how they were formed. If kept this should have inclusion criteria, have parent categories and be renamed to "Converted airlines" (or something more explanatory). DexDor(talk)19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I also connot work out how they are "converted". The two articles are already in appropriate Russian airline categories, so that no merge is needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:32, 18 May 2015 (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:Nanotechnology selected 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 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:Female Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts
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: This gendered category is the final rung on the category, which serves to either ghettoise the women (contrary to
WP:CATGRS) or require duplicate categorisation to avoid that (which causes category clutter). I am not aware of any evidence that female FRSAs are a notable topic of academic enquiry, so I see no reason for this category to be kept.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
As creator of the category, I do not object, given @BrownHairedGirl's rationale. I do not wish to "ghettoise the women" in any way. I think, if memory serves, that I created it in response to similarly named categories which were then in vogue.
Quis separabit?17:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't quite understand the rationale for deletion. The sub-section shows clearly in the main section heading and the category is 'of interest' without being demeaning, on a par with 'female Prime Ministers'.
Pincrete (
talk)
19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Pincrete: did you read
WP:CATGRS, to which I linked in the nomination? It says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one." --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I did read, however I took the attitude that RSA Fellows were more akin to 'female Prime Ministers'. Solving the (technical) problem of them being also listed independent of gender, is something I have no knowledge/opinion of/about. I think there is little evidence that ANY RSA fellows are the subject of study AS SUCH, (ie not according to their individual work or achievements).
Pincrete (
talk)
14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Pincrete: with all due respect to the women FRSAs, being an FRSA is several orders of magnitude less notable than being a prime minister. And if they aren't a subject of study AS SUCH, then the long-standing guidance is that we shouldn't have a category for them. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes probably less notable than PMs, but still fairly notable. This IS regarded in the UK as a very high honour among those active in academia etc. My point about the lack of study of FRSA's AS SUCH, was that neither male nor female FRSAs are often studied as a category, since they are from such diverse disciplines. Therefore even the gender-neutral category proposed, is 'of interest', rather than being 'of importance' as a topic of study. The gender-specific category should be judged on the same terms.
Merge per nom. The last rung problem is the major one we need to avoid. If we consitently avoided it, the issues of separation on gender would not be that big. Until people are marching in front of the Detroit Public Schools' Detroit International Academy, a public school for only girls, protesting the existence of such, I find the use of "ghetoizing" disingenuous in Wikipedia discussions. We are talking about articles, and should avoid such inflamatory language.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to point out that I was quoting 'ghettoisation' (marginalisation would have been less emotive). My point being that this IS the central issue,(along with technical issues) since FRSAs (male or female) are not the subject of study.
Pincrete (
talk)
16:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support I generally support the presence of gendered categories because gender is such a defining characteristic but I don't think one can argue with the rationale BrownHairedGirl provides in this case for a merger.
LizRead!Talk!10:35, 31 July 2015 (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:Islam in Russia work group articles by quality
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 2 pages currently in this category are in Portal namespace. The parent category is a portal category, yet this category is not named as a portal category. DexDor(talk)17:30, 15 May 2015 (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.
9th century BC
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: Merge and delete. Merge the first ~40 categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into "general decade" categories, "deaths by decade" and "by topic/location by century" categories.
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.
10th century BC
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: Merge and delete. Merge the first ~20 categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into "general decade" categories and "by topic/location by century" categories and is very similar to
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:31, 15 May 2015 (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:Historical innovative rolling stock
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: no consensus to delete, therefore rename to something. "Railway" is not sufficiently specific, as the contents are rolling stock rather than e.g. track or signalling, so I will rename this to
Category:Rolling stock innovations, without prejudice to a further discussion. –
FayenaticLondon13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep, with inclusion criteria clearly drafted on the talk: page, including the level of sourcing required, and a precis on the category page.
We are not so stupid that we can't define and make use of a sub-category. This has a clear value in terms of its usefulness and although poorly defined categories are a problem, the fix for that is to define them, not to delete them.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I think there's scope for "innovative" rolling stock, where each member demonstrates some novel feature (either first example, or first example in substantial commercial use). So the first continuous brakes, bogies, gas lighting rather than oil, tilting APTs and Pendolinos. Mostly though (and what isn't happening at present) the articles would have to clearly state what this was.
There is an argument that it should be a list instead, but the trouble with that is that categories get produced (and usually work), the list articles don't.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
?? If it's innovative, does it go in? Do signals and block instruments belong? Because if they don't (as they're not rolling stock), then leave the name as "innovative rolling stock".
Andy Dingley (
talk)
22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
DRG Class SVT 877 is, according to the current categorization, a historically innovative DMU. If, for a particular topic, we have a good categorization scheme (clear inclusion criteria, comprehensive) (e.g. by type/nationality) then extra categories such as this one are of little benefit (remembering that any information in the category could/should be in an article/list) and risk causing problems such as articles being placed in this category instead of in the comprehensive category scheme (and editors disagreeing over whether a particular article belongs in the innovative category or not). DexDor(talk)04:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
It's historically innovative, but that's not conveyed by its categorization as a DMU. Nor, in fact, is it a DMU (it's a diesel railcar set, but it can't work in multiple).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
10:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I think that this is too subjective; the title does not reflect any clear inclusion criteria (the fact that there may be some clear inclusion criteria outlined elsewhere does not help much).
Neutralitytalk03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have to admit that establishing that category I failed to explain the citeria of entry. But now I've added them. You can see that now an objective definition is available.
Of course, all items categorized here are also listed in other subcategories of
Category:Rolling stock.
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:Historical people of Thessaloniki
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.
Support. I have removed one page which was in a sub-cat already. There is no need to merge to the other head category as the sub-cats are included in that hierarchy through other routes. –
FayenaticLondon20:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge Even if we could come up with a clear distinct, such as people who acted notably in Thessaloniki before its annexation in 1912 into Greece, it is not clear it would be more than arbitrary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:07, 19 May 2015 (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:Historic trails and roads in Turkey
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.
Support by lack of non-Roman content. I wouldn't object recreating the category (as a parent category) if articles about ancient Greek or medieval roads would be created.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Historic roads in Turkey. "Trails" is an inappropriate Americanism. I have a recollection of literary references to a Great Road or King's Road of the Perian kings, possibly in Herodotus or Xenophon, which woudl have led through Anatolia. I expect that we have a WP article on that, but I cannot find it, perhaps becasue I cannot think of the precise name for it. An alternative might be
Category:Historic roads in Anatolia.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:32, 15 May 2015 (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:Historical cities and towns in Russia
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.
I added those categories to the main article, which is helpful regardless of this nomination. Also reached out to Ezhiki to make further improvements to the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Better dealt with as a list where the context of the heritage register can be properly explained. I feel that is needed, particularly as the Soviet Union is no longer extant.
SFB17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Per
WP:NONDEFINING, [a] defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define (in prose, as opposed to tabular or list form) the subject as having.... First off, please note that the term "historical" in the category title is used in a very specific sense, not as a generic description (but I see that the nominator is not claiming it to be subjective anyway). And while the "list form" (the official government list of cities having such a designation) is the primary foundation on which this category is built, it should be pretty obvious that a plethora of secondary sources can be found supporting the statement that each and every city in this list is indeed historical (in either official, or generic sense). In short, I am not convinced that NONDEFINING applies here. This said, the category title could probably be tweaked to make it more clear that the inclusion is indeed not subjective but according to a very specific criterion. Potentially confusing use of "historical" aside, this category is not very different from, say,
Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union or
Category:Cities of Military Glory.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); May 18, 2015; 20:49 (UTC)
No need for snotty abbreviations to be thrown around. I'm not saying this category should be kept merely because "other stuff exists". I'm saying it should be kept because other, similar, stuff exists for good reasons, and those good reasons apply here as well.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); May 19, 2015; 12:16 (UTC)
Delete This is an awards cat for cities (with the added problem of having a name that sounds like something else). It does not pass the high bar for keeping awards cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:09, 19 May 2015 (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.