Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

Category:Revenge episodes

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: Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revenge episodes to Category:Revenge (TV series) episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Revenge (TV series). These are episodes of the TV series named "Revenge", not television episodes of a "revenge genre" where the plot focuses on someone getting revenge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a vengeance. Indeed, when I first looked at the nominated category I thought it might be some oddly named subcat to Category:Rape and revenge films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (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 Rajanya

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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Apparently non-notable and fairly routine honor awarded by Nepal to members of royal families both Nepalese and foreign. (See this link, for instance.) Being awarded this honor is not a defining characteristic for any individual. Powers ^T 18:51, 5 October 2011 (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:People by region in country

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: Upmerge to Category:People by region. Ruslik_Zero 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by region in country to Category:People by region by country

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This seems to be the correct naming convention for this type of category, along the lines of Category:Political office-holders in Germany being a child category to Category:Political office-holders by country. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People by country is enough. The borders of regions overlap or are not bright line.Curb Chain (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – per nom. The contents (such as Category:People by region in France) seem perfectly reasonable. Occuli (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom there are 39 subcategories which are not going away anywhere. A supercategory is certainly needed in this case for navigation to them. 'Delete' is not the answer to every nomination here--it just gets in the way of thoughtful discussion. Study of each country subcategory and their regions is required instead if deletion of any of them is suggested. Hmains (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People by region. The "by country" is unnecessary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People by region. I agree that the "by country" is unnecessary to group these together. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (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:Benelux countries

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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Benelux countries to Category:Benelux

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support scope of category usage is greater than just as a country category. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2011 (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:Islamic conquests

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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islamic conquests to Category:Muslim conquests

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. "Islamic" and "Muslim" appear to be used on Wikipedia at random. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the category includes Islamic conquest of Afghanistan and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent (as well as Muslim conquests, which is the main article you refer to I guess). And those are only three articles in the category that use either "Islamic" or "Muslim" in the title. So I guess you're right about random use. I'm not voting and it's OK with me whatever is decided, but if it's really random and close to 50/50 usage, why not just leave it alone. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a category - called Category:Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent. Will we have to move this too? Mar4d (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Military spread of Islam. Conquest is a hard to define term, especially since some such as Timur's invasion of Georgia was a short-lived thing. There is no good reason to seperate various military actions, and in the case of India some things were more short-term invasions that full-fledged conquests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Islam notified of this discussion. — ξ ^xplicit 06:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to Category:Muslim conquests following the main arcticle Muslim conquests. Since 'Islam' refers to the religion and its doctrines and 'Muslim' refers to believers in Islam (people), it seems very appropriate that conquests, which were carried out by the actions of poeple, should be named 'Muslim'. This applies to all such conquest categories and articles. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like busy work. From the main article: Muslim conquests (Arabic: الغزوات, al-Ġazawāt or الفتوحات الإسلامية, al-Fatūḥāt al-Islāmiyya) also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests... The main article uses a title that's probably as good as the alternatives; see WP:TITLECHANGES. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (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:Animated television series using Hanna-Barbera laugh track

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: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This categorizes animated television series that have used a particular laugh track. I don't really want to use any more italics—but, really? I believe this is overcategorization by a minor characteristic. The information is already included at Laugh track#Hanna-Barbera. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How could this be defining? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laugh track#Hanna-Barbera is a fascinating tidbit but delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone commenting here without reading the laugh track article is really missing something. It's (really) fascinating and it makes half a case that this is defining. Well maybe a quarter of a case. Or a tenth. What I would suggest though is that we make sure that every article currently in the category has a link to the relevant section of laugh track. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2011 (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:Book Sense Book of the Year

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: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded eponymous category. All it contains is Book Sense Book of the Year (a redirect) and the subcategory, Category:Book Sense Book of the Year winners. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 5 October 2011 (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.