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: There is only one Australian geisha at this time. Don't believe this category is necessary or helpful.
Cannolis (
talk)
21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - It is precisely because non-Japanese Geishas are so unusual -- make that exceptional -- that this category is not only legitimate but downright necessary.
Cgingold (
talk)
00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
From my understanding, categories are meant to group like pages together and serve as a navigational tool between said pages. If there is but one page in a given category, doesn't that nullify the stated purpose of a category?
Cannolis (
talk)
11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. As above, a category of one serves no purpose, and this category is highly unlikely to become more populated in the near future. Even the main
Category:Geishas category is sparsely populated, with just seven Japanese names, so there is no obvious need to sub-categorize by nationality. --
DAJF (
talk)
01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
delete It's been a long time since that name popped up on my radar... anyway, we obviously don't need a category for the one non-Japanese geisha, especially since she's also in the parent category as well.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There was actually another one recently, a Hungarian lady working under the geimei of Ibu at a resort IIRC. --
Pitke (
talk)
20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment it might need to be renamed to non-ethnic Japanese geisha instead. To include all instances where non-Japanese have become geisha/
maiko; --
65.94.43.89 (
talk)
02:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete About as relevant as a category such as "Australian-born operators of dodgy tourist accommodation in Wanaka". Unlikely to ever contain other members, already covered by category Geishas, more likely to be a "look at me" element.
Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (
talk)
12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both this and the Japanese Geishas category to a generalized Geishas one. With 8 articles no sub-division is justified. If later on we have more articles on Geishas we can revisit the issue.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge this and the Japanese category back to Geishas. The whole tree contains just 8 articles.
Fiona Graham is actually already in the parent, so that a plain delete will do for the nom cat. Her nationality is indicated by other categories in her article, so thsat the intersection is not needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:28, 5 June 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:Armenian people of Oceanian descent
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: No need for another subcategory. Empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 18:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
We can't delete it as it's part of an established tree but this example highlights (again) that categorizing by descent is largely meaningless.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:59, 31 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:Transhumanist Wikipedians
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.
Oppose – almost 4 times as many people identify as transhumanists (41), rather than as merely interested in the underlying philosophy (11). I'm a transhumanist, and I'd like to be identified as one. Plus, we have a couple userboxes dedicated to this category. Please keep this category title. Thank you.
The Transhumanist05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as Wikipedians categories aren't meant to be a social network or as a self-identifier but rather they serve as a collaboration network per topic of interest.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:49, 22 June 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.
Ancient populated places by century
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.
Yes and upmerge all the other subcategories of the first target (such as by country and by continent), as they only have a couple of articles each at most.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:38, 5 June 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.
Ancient establishments by century
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.
States and territorities is a bit of a tricky nomination.
This discussion was closed as keeping the States and territories category within the century. So the current nomination contradicts that former keep closure, but it does not contradict the former rationale to keep it within the century: this new nomination does keep it within the century after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:46, 2 June 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.
Female members of the House of Habsburg
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.