Category:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador alumni[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. LizRead!Talk!17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Main article Qarmatians has an Infobox former country and an Infobox war faction, both of which provide exactly the same beginning and end dates of 899–1077.
It also claims that it all started with Bahrain and ended with Bahrain (or Bahrayn if you will):
Start: Eventually, from Qatar, he captured Bahrain's capital Hajr and al-Hasa in 899, which he made the capital of his state...
End: According to the maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, the Qarmatians finally disappeared in 1067, after they lost their fleet at Bahrain Island and were expelled from Hasa near the Arabian coast by the chief of Banu, Murra ibn Amir.
1067 may be a typo, as the rest of the article insists on 1077, referring to Overthrow of the Qarmatians, which is dated to 1058–1077.
Finally, the example of Battle of Hama is so ambiguous as to what the "Qarmatians" have to do with it (which is discussed at length in the article itself, with good sources), that it cannot count as evidence for non-Bahraini "Qarmatians".
But the Battle of Hama is counted as a Qarmatian battle by primary sources, and will be found as such even in some modern literature. And no, the Qarmatians != Bahrayn, no matter what the article currently claims. Bahrayn was the only successful Qarmatian state, but Qarmatianism is broader than that, with adherents across the Middle East, of lesser prominence due to the lack of state power, but still following their own doctrines and with their own histories. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the Battle of Hama is questionable, as other primary sources contradict it, and many modern scholars do not think it involved Qarmatians (read Battle of Hama#Background). Have you got examples of battles other than Hama that supposedly involved non-Bahraini Qarmatians? NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (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: This counts as a WP:HOAX. Nothing called "Wesea" actually exists. It is an aspiration for certain separatist political movements. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was emptied by the nominator. There are scripts that can show you who has added or removed articles or categories from a category. LizRead!Talk!20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. That is why I didn't use WP:G3 as my rationale. The issue is deeper than just being an empty category. But even G3 should be good enough, for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2024 (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.
Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect certainly seems helpful, especially if we agree a merger is a good idea, but are in doubt about the best target. One way or the other, readers and editors will thus find their way. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Per nom so that the original single category for this is restored, for the most part the contents of the category have nothing to do with being from folklore, and it's an WP:OVERLAPCAT anyway with folklore falling under the purview of legends. The article itself is Legendary creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep, or do the following: RenameCategory:Mythological creaturestoCategory:Creatures in myth and legend, and RenameCategory:Folklore creaturestoCategory:Creatures in folklore. Then selectively SplitCategory:Legendary creatures to each of those renamed categories. I think I said this in a previous discussion on CfD, but the Myth/Legend/Folklore distinction is a bit fluid in the sources. I think for our purposes, if we use Folklore as the overall term, and then have a separate "in myth and legend" (or "in myths and legends", if preferred), then I think that should resolve most things, and help a bit more to guide editors away from applying WP:OR. But we need to be careful about Myth, especially in regards to people and creatures, because belief and religion can be involved there. - jc3720:16, 22 June 2024 (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.
Fair point. I was worried about that already. This presumably isn't a problem for Category:Arabs in the Roman Empire then? The Nabataean Kingdom and Roman Judea were annexed after 27 BCE, but I'm not sure about the demographics of Coele-Syria (Roman province) (annexed in 64 BCE). Perhaps other scholars could correct me on this, but by my knowledge, Coele-Syria in the 1st century BCE was populated by a mixture of Greeks and Hellenised Aramaeans, Syriacs, and Jews / Samaritans, and Romans. I'm not sure there was a substantial population of "Arabs" there at a time (though no doubt the occasional Arabian merchant would pass through the region). If Arabs didn't form a significant population within the Roman Republic, perhaps this category doesn't have the same scope issues as our Roman-era Africans. NLeeuw (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some more explicit support/opposition to various potential names for the categories would be appreciated :) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the first, lean oppose the second: the Constitutio Antoniniana of AD 212 granted citizenship to all free residents of the Roman empire, and while there were non-free inhabitants (slaves, prisoners), we would probably consider them Romans irrespective of their legal status. So in theory the only non-Romans from that point onward would be travelers passing through—and they probably do not represent a significant proportion of these categories. Even before this, most of the inhabitants of areas under direct Roman governance are people we would consider "Romans" in the broadest sense.
The first proposed category could theoretically include people of any origin living anywhere on the continent of Africa between the eighth century BC and the sixth century AD—possibly later, depending on whether you include the Byzantine Empire under "Roman era". In theory this would include the Carthaginians, Numidians, Egyptians, and various other Phoenician and Greek colonists, as well as native peoples, even before they had contact with, much less governance by Rome. But the clear intent of the category under its current title is to include inhabitants of Roman Africa, not other areas, and this also limits the time period—there was no Roman era in Africa until the latter half of the second century BC, and other areas only gradually came under Roman control (for instance, Numidia, Tripolitania, Egypt). Renaming the category as proposed would dramatically increase the nominal scope in a way that is not intended.
"Roman-era people by province" is not quite as bad, since its geographic scope would be limited to people within the borders of Roman territories, but again it would include relatively few non-Romans, since once a place became a Roman province, its free inhabitants typically became citizens, or in the case of non-free inhabitants who were owned by citizens, or natives under direct Roman governance, we would still typically call them Roman: although there must have been many non-citizens at various early stages, but there will be very few articles about them, and since the category name does not explicitly refer to citizenship, they could still be included under a broad reading of "Romans". The only people who would definitely not be included, again, would be travelers from foreign lands, and there cannot be a significant number of articles about foreign travelers in the Roman Empire—and they would not be "from" the provinces named, so it's not clear they would be included even under the proposed title.
In all, "Roman-era African people" is a really bad choice, as its title gives it a potentially unlimited scope, unconnected with either Romans or Roman territory; "Roman-era people by province" would be misleading, since it implies a broader scope than that which is evidently intended, even though there would hardly be any non-Romans in it (possibly various Huns, Goths, Franks, or Vandals toward the end of the Western Empire, though some of these became nominally Roman). P Aculeius (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (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:Violence in the Palestinian territories[edit]
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, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition.VR(Please ping on reply)09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you found some articles because then we do not need to merge. Until that happens the merge can go ahead, we do not keep empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question. I had always assumed that whatever area of the former British mandate of Palestine was not incorporated into the State of Israel after the war of 1948 was known as "Palestinian territories", but I would have to consult the historiography on this. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2024 (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:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States[edit]
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: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are subpages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.) So it should likely be renamed to make its intentions clearer. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (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:Organisations based in Northeast India[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Only the writer and work of theirs in the category. Unhelpful for navigation when there are only two pages like this Mason (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (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: I haven't listed all of the child categories of this, but the problem is not the parent category. The problem is that the parent category contains a massive 39 largely-overlapping categories for just 24 actual articles. I suggest that every child of this category should be merged back to the parent. PepperBeast(talk)02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hie, Creator of many of the Categories here. To explain why so many categories were created. I actually created all the "in Meitei mythology" to basically UNCLOUT other categories. Apparently ALL the deities of Meitei mythology are Deities of Everything-and-Its-Neighbour and one of the creator of pages put each and every one (or close to it) in dozens of categories for basically almost every god and goddess. I don't know anything about Meitei Mythology, so I can't tell which god really belong in a category or not (apparently basically all goddesses or close to it are Goddess of Abundance, Beauty, Arts, Fertility, Love and lust, Peace, Magic, among other things...) Though some divinities in each Pantheon can have lots of domains (like Apollo in greek mythology, Sucellos in the celt one), and I can't tell which really belong in each category or not. Still, I note that most don't have anything in the description or a reference that would justify many of the various categories listed (I think one of the rational seems to be that if a goddess is beautiful then she's deemed a goddess of Beauty, Fertility as well as Love and lust, any divinity that is not a warrior is automatically pushed into God/Goddess of Peace and basically all divinities are Fortune ones just by existing, unless linked to something unfortunate...) This caused a bit of a strange situation in the various categories, as for exemple if you went to Category:Abundance goddesses to have a look at the goddesses of this domain, half the goddesses (17 out of 34) were the Meitei Goddesses alone, the other half for ALL the other Pantheons in the world put together... Same with the other categories, 20 out of the 44 pages in Category:Beauty goddesses were the Meitei goddesses, 19 out of the 47 pages of Category:Fortune goddesses, etc. Though when so many categories in a pagebelongs to just one other pantheon, usually creating a child page is preferable. --Zeynel (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of these categories have been prematurely emptied by the nominator, Pepperbeast. I'm not sure why they couldn't wait until this had a formal closure before taking action. That's a task for the closer, not the nominator. LizRead!Talk!20:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "prematurely empty" anything. I did my best to remove excessive categories from articles, which I would do regardless of outcome. PepperBeast(talk)21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You emptied multiple categories that are currently up for discussion! Why did this action happen now, during this discussion period? It upends any decision made here by the participants and renders this discussion moot. Couldn't you have done this emptying before or after the nomination? LizRead!Talk!23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Category contents were changed without clear explanation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it matters but the categories that were emptied after this CFD discussion was opened are:
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: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: because I don't want to close a 44-category CfD as "unopposed". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Heartstalk04:56, 21 June 2024 (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:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate[edit]
Category:Christian universalists by nationality[edit]
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.
For the record, my request was to get feedback on whether universalism should be parented by denomination or placed in the main category as a philosophy/theory. I never said that the revision from 2016 was inappropriate, I said that was a stable edit. I don't have a strong opinion, on the parent category, but I did want others to weigh in about how it should be categorized. Mason (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (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: merge, the Sixteen Kingdoms contains partially parallel and mostly very short-living kingdoms, typically a few decades. No need to categorize Buddhist monks by each of them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (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: Dual upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between the type of textile artist and gender. Mason (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2024 (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.
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:
Agustín de Iturbide y Green: When he came of age, Iturbide, who had graduated from Georgetown University, renounced his claim to the throne and title and returned to Mexico. So as soon as he was legally capable, he renounced his claim.
María Josepha Sophia de Iturbide: [She inhered] the Habsburg claim on the throne. Maria Josepha was a very traditional Lady, and a devout Roman Catholic, and stayed as far away from politics as she could. Doesn't seem to have actively pursued her claim either; seems more like other people expect(ed) her to pursue it for purely genealogical reasons (but WP:NOTGENEALOGY).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Associated TfD was closed as delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (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:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky[edit]
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: Dual merge. There's only one page in here, and no other city (or state) level categories in Defunct Catholic schools in the United States Mason (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what happened. There's definitely been changes to how notability for schools should be handled, so its totally reasonable that it made sense at the time. Mason (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 29#Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners
NLeeuw (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
