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.
Merge For Now I'm not a fan of "persecution" artcile names. I prefer "Anti-paganism polices of Emperor X" or "Anti-Christian policies of Emperor Y". I see little scope for enlargement beyond neo-paganism which is not the same thing at all.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
14:40, 29 March 2016 (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:Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings
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 can't imagine the basis for creating individual articles for each person involved. At best, many of them will have redirect links while one or maybe two will actually get articles. However, I doubt any of them will get any articles at this time, given we don't have enough information on any of them that warrants standalone articles.
Parsley Man (
talk)
18:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as overcategorisation and per
WP:BLP since there are as yet no judicial findings of fact to justify inclusion. Oh, and the category would contain, at its most extensive, perhaps a handful of names, of whom at most two or three would meet
WP:GNG. Guy (
Help!)
10:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge -- I have voted to keep
Category:2016 Brussels bombings. The alleged perpetrators can conveniently go into that. We may never get a verdict on those who blew themselves up, but their guilt is evident. Living participants will no doubt be tried and sentenced eventually. I expect that we will eventually get enough information to have substantive articles, but we willprobably have to wait until the trials.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Per the spirit of
WP:C1, an unpopulated category. All of these are redirects to articles which are already well categorized. Write 5 articles, and then go ahead and recreate the category.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:07, 27 March 2016 (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:Word Ways
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:Eponymous category for a magazine that doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one -- all that's here is the eponym and a "people" subcategory for people who've contributed to it. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The "people" subcategory includes a lot of people whoa re no notable for their contributions to this publication, it is arbitrary and trivial to categorise them like this. Guy (
Help!)
11:08, 26 March 2016 (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:Multilingual Poets
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: Newly-created category on a non-
WP:DEFINING characteristic. While the specific languages in which a person wrote poetry would be defining, and indeed we already have categories for that, the mere fact of being "multilingual" is not a defining or category-worthy characteristic in and of itself. This category has been used only for Indian and Nepalese poets -- where being multilingual kind of goes with the territory -- but if properly populated it would also have to include any Canadian writer who wrote in both English and French, any American writer who wrote in both English and Spanish, any British or Irish writer who wrote in both English and one of the Celtic languages, and on and so forth -- but it doesn't constitute a defining point of commonality across all those myriad unrelated contexts. So for those reasons I believe this is a delete -- but even if it were keepable for some reason that's not obvious to me, it's capitalized wrong and would still have to be renamed to ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Multilingual poets.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete That a person wrote in a particular language puts them in a coherent group. That they did so in Swahili and English does not make them like someone who did so in Korean and Japanese.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:19, 26 March 2016 (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.
Wikipedians by edit count
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.
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.
Rename: Should be by country not region. 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
IQ125 (
talk •
contribs)
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.
Nominator's rationale: These categories each contain the same four articles, which are also the only articles listed in
Category:World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man has never, as far as I am aware, had any Military of its own, and there are no articles about it. I suggest that these four categories should be reduced to one: "Internment camps on the Isle of Man". (There is a suggestion in one of the articles that there were similar camps on the Island in World War 1). As far as I know there was nothing that has been described as an internment camp in any other part of the UK, though there is a well populated category
Category:World War II prisoner of war camps in the United Kingdom.
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:33, 25 March 2016 (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:Late Roman-era Macedonians
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT but also as a case of plain overcategorization. We categorize people by century while the century categories are containerized as Ancient and Medieval. It seems pretty redundant to have an extra layer between centuries and Ancient/Medieval. (Note: this reasoning would not apply for topics though, because in contrast to people there are topics that don't fit in a single century but rather span entire Late Antiquity.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This and the Thessalonian sub-cat need to be split between the Roman era and Late antique era. I am not quite sure where the line on this is drawn.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:53, 26 March 2016 (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:Members of the Order of the Silver Elephant
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.
There is no main article on the
Order of the Silver Elephant and there isn't going to be one: the first 4 hits on Google are this Wikipeda category and the 5th is pictures of silver elephant jewelry from Thailand (
source). There is only
one article in the category and it only mentions this honor in a list of Thailand Boy Scout awards. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:25, 25 March 2016 (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:Calendar dates
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:Late-Roman-era eunuchs
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.
Note, see also three nominations higher on this page. The same (additional) argument of overcategorization mentioned there, may apply here as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge -- Both articles relate to the period before the sacking of Rome, which might be regarded as a boundary between Roman and Late Antique.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
(As creator) Support. I see that there is no need for a double merge also to other parent
Category:Late-Roman-era people, as both member pages are in another sub-cat of that one as 4th/5th-century Romans. @
Marcocapelle: I would appreciate it if such nominations would explain why upmerging to other parent categories is not required. –
FayenaticLondon00:07, 27 March 2016 (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.