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:Works about intellectuals
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:Taisha
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.
Strong oppose Taisha is a shrine ranking, and Taisha-zukuri is a tangentially related architectural style named after one such shrine with that ranking. We should have an article on Taisha but we currently do not.
Immanuelle ❤️💚💙
(talk to the cutest Wikipedian)08:00, 19 May 2023 (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:Kamo shrines
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:Susanoo shrines
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:Gion faith
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:delete, not a defining characteristic of these articles, Gion is often not mentioned at all. The article
Gion is about a part of Kyoto, but the articles are unrelated to that.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:54, 14 May 2023 (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:Kōshin faith
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:Sanno faith
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:Towers in religion
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 The current name seems to suggest the topic is about the meaning/significance of towers in religious thought/practice/theology/symbolism, but it is about the religious functions of actual towers.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
19:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't follow the logic here (why is "religious buildings" fine but not "religious towers"?). At any rate, it clearly is possible for inanimate objects to be "religious" - aside from "religious buildings", the obvious example is "religious books".
Furius (
talk)
00:24, 19 May 2023 (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:Regional Sōja
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:Ancient Greek rulers
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.
Agreed that the archons were definitely not "monarchs". It's a bit questionable whether they were "rulers", either, despite the literal meaning of ἄρχειν. The category should move to Category:Ancient Greeks by occupation, Category:Heads of state of former countries, Category:Ancient Greek government, Category:Ancient Greek statesmen (it really ought to be renamed "eponymous archons of Athens", since other city-states (e.g. Delphi) also had eponymous archons...)
Furius (
talk)
00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, the result of that discussion was that female ancient Greek tyrants were excluded from
Category:Ancient Greek queens regnant. I would not want to reopen that discussion, I think the result was clear.
That tyrants and archons qualify for "heads of state" is probably accurate, so re-parenting to
Category:Heads of state of former countries is probably a good idea. We currently have no
Category:Ancient Greek heads of state, and I am not proposing to create it either, because that might imply that Ancient Greece was a (unified) "state", which of course it wasn't.
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:Montreal Maroons (soccer) 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.
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the soccer club is notable. No article exists, no independent sources could be found.
Geregen2 (
talk)
16:12, 14 May 2023 (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:National Taekwondo teams
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.
Monica and Friends
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.
Sexologists
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:Montreal CPR 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.
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable. Existed in the 1920s and 1930s, no article, I could not find independent coverage.
Geregen2 (
talk)
14:41, 14 May 2023 (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.
Olympic sportspeople of Foo
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 reason for for and not from, except for that parent categories are for is that a sportsperson may be from somewhere but represent another entity. For these categories, it is who they represent that is defining.
It doesn’t look to be an preference for of in Wikipedia articles: one "Olympic swimmer of" and 30+ "Olympic swimmer for"; or in web search results: three "Olympic swimmer of Great Britain" -wiki and 1,280 "Olympic swimmer for Great Britain" -wiki
Oppose "Chinese Taipei" for consistency. Taiwan is called Taiwan throughout the category tree and "for Chinese Taipei" is not required here as part of a proper name or a standard expression.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I suspect that objections from PRC may mean that Taiwanese competitors have to use that team name. The country calls itself "Republic of China" but WP decided long ago that we should call it Taiwan. Perhaps this should apply here too.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Support "for" but Oppose "Chinese Taipei". The categories for Taiwan participation at the Olympics also cover the period between 1956 and 1976 where Taiwan sent a delegation under the names of either Republic of China, Formosa or Taiwan. "Chinese Taipei" only became a thing starting in 1981. There would probably be little reason to split the categories for Taiwanese participation in the Olympics before or after this date, and "Taiwan" is a better time-independent term for the topic because it is the widely understood common name of the country.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, the main distinction being that not every competitor for a country is necessarily of that country, being eligible through whatever grounds - and that the relevant defining feature for the category is the country being represented; the distinction indicates this focus. I suppose that otherwise, theoretically because it would never stand, someone could try to argue adding multiple "competitor of X" categories to articles of athletes with dual nationality even if they've only represented one country at the Olympics. And since a bot will surely be making the changes, it was probably more effort for me to type this.
Kingsif (
talk)
03:53, 18 May 2023 (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:Fictional energy swordfighters
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: Fails
WP:NONDEF. Created by a banned user. The fact that they use an energy sword in particular does not really have a bearing on their characterization.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
10:45, 14 May 2023 (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:Princes in Rus'
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.
To me, "in" sounds more natural here, but I do not have a big issue with "from" either. That applies likewise to princesses insofar that is meant to refer to spouses of ruling princes.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the nom has been modified from the original. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac1506:36, 14 May 2023 (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:Medieval Islamic world
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.
Meanwhile, all the "civilizations" categories that are created and added by various people keep getting nominated and deleted as inappropriate or as recreations of previous deleted categories.
It has never been restricted to religious content in the first place, that is exactly why
Category:Medieval Islam was and is not a good name for it. We might want to try creating a new
Category:Medieval Islam as a subcategory strictly focusing on the equivalent of what in Christianity is sometimes called "church history". It may be populated with a subcategory of medieval Islamic religious scholars, a subcategory of their works and maybe a subcategory of medieval religious movements.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MarcocapelleIt has never been restricted to religious content in the first place How do you know that? All its Foo in the medieval Islamic world subcats were not created by Al-Andalusi until 2020-2022.
With the list of subcategories that were in it from the beginning you merely confirm what I said before, that the category has never been restricted to religious content in the first place. Everything is very "arguable" when you look at it from a historian of religion's point of view. For example
Category:Carolingian Empire is not in the tree of
Category:Christianity in the Middle Ages and likewise no Islamic country belongs in
Category:Medieval Islam, as country categories cover politics, culture, society, in short they cover everything of the country, and not just religion. On the other hand
Category:Christianity in the Middle Ages covers specific religious subjects, as it is supposed to do, like church councils and theological controversies, but Islam does not have something similar to church councils and has way fewer (well-known) theological controversies.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
By that logic, we should rename its parent
Category:History of Islam to
Category:History of the Islamic world. It's not really about religion, just a catch-all for anything vaguely associated with Islam. Rather than purging miscategories items and subcats, we just abandon the scope of a category. We add a slew of geographic generalisations, which
pan-Islamists will love, and will implicitly virtually erase the existence of millions of non-Muslims from areas across three continents from all of history. (Oh, and let's try and categorise it as some sort of "civilization"; I don't know which yet, but hopefully we'll find one that sticks eventually). Why? Because Islam does not have something similar to church councils and has way fewer (well-known) theological controversies. /sarcasm. I'm sorry, but I don't think these are valid excuses for abandoning our policies on categorisation. I'm a bit frustrated that you do not appear to see just how many issues that these categorisations are causing (even though you have seen and corrected some of them already). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
23:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sarcasm aside, Islam has many denominations, seminaries, and councils. Alawite, Shia, Sunni, and Sufi have had many wars, perhaps more than Roman Catholic and Protestant. Sunni alone has 4 major schools: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, and Hanbali, the latter spawning the Wahhabi and Salafi movements in Saudi Arabia. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
07:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
While there are of course differences in Islam, these can often be explained in the articles about denominations, schools and movements. What I was talking about is historical events with stand-alone notability that merit an article. That is how categories get populated. For Islam we have very few.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This much wider than just Islam as a religion, but refers to a whole culture or civilisation, and some of it is about people who were not Muslims.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:07, 14 May 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that the club is notable. Played in an amateur league 50+ years ago. No independent coverage could be found.
Geregen2 (
talk)
00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Club were Canadian national champions in 1971 (winners of the
Challenge Trophy) and had Canadian national team players playing for it
at the time, two of whom are in this category. There are numerous references to the club in contemporaneous newspapers (the club are also referred to as "Vancouver Eintracht"). Cheers,
Number5711:04, 14 May 2023 (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.