September 29
Christian mystics
Category:Roman mystics
Category:Articles presenting hypothesis as fact
- 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. Timrollpickering 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Empty with no known parser error, template, or module to populate it. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 29 September 2018 (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:Vertebrates of Metropolitan France
- 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: Merge. Timrollpickering 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Sailfin roughshark) is found in a particular European country is non-defining. Example previous similar CFDs: vertebrates/Europe. For info: All previous non-bot edits to these categories are by now-blocked editor(s). DexDor (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2018 (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.
Recurring events until 1800
- 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:
Relisted at 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]- Propose merging Category:Recurring events established in 353 to Category:353 establishments
- Propose merging Category:Recurring events established in 539 to Category:539 establishments
- Propose merging Category:Recurring events established in 869 to Category:869 establishments
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories contain only one article and/or one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline says part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - which means that it is not permitted to nominate one or a few subcategories of an overall scheme that happen to be small just by chance while adjacent siblings are big enough to keep. The guideline makes perfect sense, but is not applicable here: it is the scheme itself that is being discussed (up to a certain point), not random parts of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple Merge as nom. By their nature, most annual categories are likely to be single-item ones. I would however propose a further merge to new century categories up to and including Category:Recurring events established in 17th century and then Category:Recurring events established in 1710s etc. for 18th century, though I could be persuaded that the 18th century should also only have a century category. The parent would be renamed to Category:Recurring events by date of establishment (currently year of). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact the large amount of these (ancient, medieval and early modern) recurring events are festivals and the festivals are already diffused by time. So there is no real need to create a parallel recurring events tree for older centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2018 (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:Buddhist martyrs
- 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. Timrollpickering 07:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The concept martyr is alien to Buddhist doctrine, and hardly occurs in relevant scholarship. Standard reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Buddhism[1] and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism[2] do not mention the term at all, and the Pali-English Dictionary[3] has one passing mention of the word, which is Greek and only mentioned for etymological reasons, with no bearing on Buddhist doctrine. The concept that a good Buddhist should give his life for his religion is known, but it is differently understood than in Christianity, and I wonder whether it is useful and correct to use Christian terminology to describe another religion.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:44, 29 September 2018 (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:Descendants of Genghis Khan
- 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) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, we do not usually categorize people as descending of one particular ancestor. Note about the target: the Borjigin were the clan of Genghis Khan's ancestors and successors in the Mongol Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The DNA evidence would be applicable to the entire Borjigin (merge target). The DNA of Genghis Khan's nephews and grandparents would surely be closer to his own than the DNA of a 20th-century descendant. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; no objection to a sourced listification. Being descended from Genghis Khan is not inherently notable nor defining. Presumably these folks did more than have some (perhaps infinitesimally small) fraction of DNA in common with Genghis Khan. One could repeat nearly all the "keep" arguments for Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria or Category:Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark both of whose descendants are written about as descendants and many have little claim to notability but for derivative of their lineage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Carlos. If he has millions of descendants, most have nothing to do with him. Cannot be considered defining or meaningful to an individual after the fall of the Mongol Empire. Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (as nom) I would be okay with delete, instead of merge as nominated, after all we also have the Category:Mongol khans which contains the more relevant subset of descendants of Genghis Khan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2018 (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:Best Picture Academy Award nominated films
Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with an atypical party value
- 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: category was speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Pages using infobox officeholder with an atypical party value (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful. Usually it's caused by people who have switched parties or are affiliated with multiple parties at once. I don't see the need for tracking all of them. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Frietjes, I just declined a proposal for speedy deletion of this category per G7/user request; I declined it because you were not the person making the request. But if you want to make a request yourself for speedy deletion per G7, it will probably get honored. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- MelanieN, no problem, I usually wait until the category is empty before tagging it with G7 (the server is still recaching the pages). Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2018 (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.