Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 9

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: No consensus Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:GAA people by county to Category:Gaelic games people by county (currently a redirect).
  • Category:GAA people from County Antrim to Category:Gaelic games people from County Antrim
  • Category:GAA people from County Armagh to Category:Gaelic games people from County Armagh
  • Category:GAA people from County Carlow to Category:Gaelic games people from County Carlow
  • Category:GAA people from County Cavan to Category:Gaelic games people from County Cavan
  • Category:GAA people from County Clare to Category:Gaelic games people from County Clare
  • Category:GAA people from County Cork to Category:Gaelic games people from County Cork
  • Category:GAA people from County Londonderry to Category:Gaelic games people from County Londonderry
  • Category:GAA people from County Donegal to Category:Gaelic games people from County Donegal
  • Category:GAA people from County Down to Category:Gaelic games people from County Down
  • Category:GAA people from County Dublin to Category:Gaelic games people from County Dublin
  • Category:GAA people from County Fermanagh to Category:Gaelic games people from County Fermanagh
  • Category:GAA people from County Galway to Category:Gaelic games people from County Galway
  • Category:GAA people from County Kerry to Category:Gaelic games people from County Kerry
  • Category:GAA people from County Kildare to Category:Gaelic games people from County Kildare
  • Category:GAA people from County Kilkenny to Category:Gaelic games people from County Kilkenny
  • Category:GAA people from County Laois to Category:Gaelic games people from County Laois
  • Category:GAA people from County Leitrim to Category:Gaelic games people from County Leitrim
  • Category:GAA people from County Limerick to Category:Gaelic games people from County Limerick
  • Category:GAA people from London to Category:Gaelic games people from London
  • Category:GAA people from County Longford to Category:Gaelic games people from County Longford
  • Category:GAA people from County Louth to Category:Gaelic games people from County Louth
  • Category:GAA people from County Mayo to Category:Gaelic games people from County Mayo
  • Category:GAA people from County Meath to Category:Gaelic games people from County Meath
  • Category:GAA people from County Monaghan to Category:Gaelic games people from County Monaghan
  • Category:GAA people from County Offaly to Category:Gaelic games people from County Offaly
  • Category:GAA people from County Roscommon to Category:Gaelic games people from County Roscommon
  • Category:GAA people from County Sligo to Category:Gaelic games people from County Sligo
  • Category:GAA people from County Tipperary to Category:Gaelic games people from County Tipperary
  • Category:GAA people from County Tyrone to Category:Gaelic games people from County Tyrone
  • Category:GAA people from County Waterford to Category:Gaelic games people from County Waterford
  • Category:GAA people from County Westmeath to Category:Gaelic games people from County Westmeath
  • Category:GAA people from County Wexford to Category:Gaelic games people from County Wexford
  • Category:GAA people from County Wicklow to Category:Gaelic games people from County Wicklow
  • Category:GAA people by province to Category:Gaelic games people by province
  • Category:GAA people from Connacht to Category:Gaelic games people from Connacht
  • Category:GAA people from Leinster to Category:Gaelic games people from Leinster
  • Category:GAA people from Munster to Category:Gaelic games people from Munster
  • Category:GAA people from Ulster to Category:Gaelic games people from Ulster

Rationale: The sports covered in these categories are Gaelic games and the organisation involved (or at least one of them) is the Gaelic Athletic Association.

The Camogie Association is represented in some categories, e.g. Category:Tipperary camogie players in Category:GAA people from County Tipperary. It has "close ties" with the GAA but is it really the GAA?

The name of the sport is used in similar category titles, e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Galway has Category:Association footballers from County Galway and Category:Rugby union players from County Galway.

So "Category:Gaelic games people from" would make sense.

--Gaois (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - moreover GAA is a dab page. Oculi (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the parents before cfd (see BHG below) and rendering the tree incomprehensible is to be deplored. GAA should be expanded. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. The effect of this move would be to make the categories broader than their parent Category:Gaelic Athletic Association people. The nominator appears to have recognised this, and removed Category:GAA people by province and Category:GAA people by county from Category:Gaelic Athletic Association people, in these 2 edits: [1], [2]. That should have been disclosed.

It have reverted both those edits, because it seems to me be completely perverse to create a situation where Category:Gaelic Athletic Association people doesn't include the by-county and by-province categories which reflect the GAA's structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BHG. Gaelic games and GAA are not quite the same thing, and this would make that change. I would not necessarily be opposed to spelling out GAA as Gaelic Athletic Association. SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I am totally ignorant about the topic but I can see that User:BrownHairedGirl's oppose makes sense from a logical point of view. Yet I wonder, wouldn't the inclusion of higher level categories in this nomination lead to a more satisfactory outcome of this discussion than a simple "keep"? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only people who would be in Category:GAA people from County Foo that are not players of Gaelic games are officials, referees, patrons and presidents. There are not many of the people. Category:Presidents of the Gaelic Athletic Association and patrons have their own categories. The county in which an official was born is not notable enough to have a category by county for it in my opinion. However, if other editors wish to retain Category:GAA people from County Foo as a parent category for Category:Gaelic games people from County Foo then I won't object. I suspect that such an arrangement would fail SmallCat though. The main occupants of Category:GAA people from County Foo is the players, not the officials; the name should reflect that reality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest -- "Gaelic sports people ...", as GAA covers several different sports. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this ends in a no-consensus, the names should really be changed from "GAA" to "Gaelic Athletic Association" to follow parent categories like Category:Gaelic Athletic Association people. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: do not merge, but make Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion a subcategory of Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel starvation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel starvation

Nominator's rationale: yes, they are different, but the results are basically the same and fuel exhaustion redirects to fuel starvation, so they seem to be handled the same way at Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These are not the same thing and are different enough that they can be categorised separately. Exhaustion is effectively a subset of starvation. SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SportingFlyer, but purge of articles where fuel exhaustion was not the actual the cause of the incident (e.g. if the crew were incapacited and the aircraft flew on until out of fuel) and cross-link the categories. DexDor ^(talk) 06:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reparent Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel exhaustion under Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fuel starvation since the consensus above is that's it's a subset. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the actions proposed by DexDor and RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Oncology articles needing expert attention to Category:Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force articles needing expert attention

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the target one is a proper task force while this isn't. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: category has already been deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rap gods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Obvious vandalism. ｖａｐｏｒｇａｚｅ💬 (please ping on reply) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not vandalism. It's a fact. Eminem rapped really fast on Rap God and Godzilla (Eminem song). Mac Lethal rapped really fast near the end of his alphabet rap, and had videos of him rapping 400 syllables in 1 minute and 1000 syllables in 2 minutes. I was just trying to make a list of people who ever had guinness world records for highest rate of syllables/time. Logo fixer (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. What is that name based on? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Airstrikes by perpetrator to Category:Airstrikes by attacker

Nominator's rationale: The super-category Category:Categories by perpetrator is really for things that might typically be consider crimes that are perpetrated. Air strikes are a military operations conducted by an attacker. Greenshed (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Films set in Latveria to Category:Films set in fictional populated places

Nominator's rationale: Merge with Category:Films set in fictional populated places per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF. One page in this category, Small category with no potential to grow. And It isn't a defining characteristic that the films are set in this exact fictional location. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the place of setting is not defining at all in this case. Latveria is just a random name and not relevant for the story line. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Czech companies established in 1989

Nominator's rationale: It is an "orphan' category, and although the single article in the category Dominant CZ refers to a company in the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic (as distinct from Czechoslovakia) came into existence in perhaps 1991 or 1993. Hence the article should be upmerged into Category:Companies established in 1989, Category:1989 establishments in Czechoslovakia and perhaps Category:Companies of the Czech Republic.Hugo999 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The Czech Republic started in 1993. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge I'm not at all swayed by the argument that we should distinguish companies founded in the Czech Republic with ones founded in Czechoslovakia, looking specifically at the "establishments in Russia" categories. However, there's only one company in the Czech Republic classified by year right now, so the upmerge - even though it's in a valid series - makes sense at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 10 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Brownbuls to Category:Pycnonotidae

Nominator's rationale: The category text includes "This category lists birds traditionally referred to as "brownbuls", regardless of their actual relationships." - hence SHAREDNAME applies. Note: The lack of any interwiki links is a further indication that this is specific to English language names.  See e.g. Grackles CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, inaccurate classification. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:SHAREDNAME. Plantdrew (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:First Secretaries of the Leningrad City Committee of the CPSU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added on relisting, 9 June 2020)
  • Propose deleting Category:First Secretaries of City Committees of the CPSU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, while reading the articles I did not get the impression that this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category is for mayors of Moscow in Soviet times. Place Clichy (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Place Clichy: no, the mayors of Moscow in Soviet times are in Category:Chairpersons of the Executive Committee of Mossovet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In communist systems, the party first secretary is often considered having the real power. Place Clichy (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not really appear from the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to categorise politicians on the basis of who has real power is asking for trouble. Rathfelder (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Place Clichy and Rathfelder: trying to revive this discussion. Of the 13 first secretaries in this category there are only two articles which elaborate on what these people have done or achieved while they were first secretary, namely: Nikita Khrushchev and Boris Yeltsin. And as you know, these two people are known way better for their later career. In most cases the function of first secretary is mentioned without any further comments, and in some shorter articles it is not even mentioned at all, e.g. in Karl Bauman. I really think that this is not a defining function. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• From my limited understanding of the Soviet Union I would agree with you. The real bosses generally assembled a load of titles, just as English kings used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 June 2020‎

• Delete for Now This category really needs a sourced main article at First Secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (not the current redirect) to clarify for non-experts what this role entailed, since it doesn't appear to be a "mayor" role. Once that happens, we can certainly revisit. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there were no projects listed on the talk pages. I have just added {{WikiProject Soviet Union}}, so this may now draw more comments via that project's Alerts page. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, that didn't work; I don't think that project uses Alerts. I have now added {{WikiProject Russia}} as that project does. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 18 July 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Saar people in sports to Category:Sportspeople from Saarland‎

Nominator's rationale: This would empty Category:Saar people by occupation, which seems to be designed for people from the shortlived Saar Protectorate. There seems to be some sense in the sport categories, as there were national teams from the protectorate, but it doesnt seem to be necessary to have wider categorisation, especially as it is completely ambiguous, Saarland now being one of the German states. Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Category:People in sports by nationality was purposely created to remove non-athletes (coaches, managers, etc.) from the Category:Sportspeople by nationality tree. (The lone subcategory, Category:Saar sports coaches, was previously under Category:Saar sportspeople, which has since been deleted.) I don't think a merger that would result in coaches being put back under a sportspeople category (even though this one's not part of the by-nationality tree) is a good idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category, as well as subcat Category:Saar sports coaches and its lone subcat Category:Saar football managers, which I have tagged. While it may be helpful to have categories for sportspeople who have represented the Saar Protectorate back when it existed, football managers are not such representatives, and neither of the subjects of the two articles under the category were managers during the time of the protectorate. I'd also say there's a case for re-creating Category:Saar sportspeople, which was manually emptied, with the clear scope of sportspeople who have internationally represented the protectorate, to clearly separate the nationality tree from the location tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We still have Category:Olympic competitors for Saar. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Saar is not a nationality or ethnicity. Saarland was for a short period a separate polity (protectorate), but it will be much more satisfactory to treat it as having continuity with the German state. All Saar categories should be merged to equivalent Saarland ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I fail to understand how sports coaches are not sportspeople, especially given that most coaches are former competitors (as is the case with both those in the Saarland coaches category). Grutness...wha? 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, do not delete, people represented Saar in international sports for a short time, though I do think there needs to be some pruning. (Also, looking though the people in the cat, our notability standards for Olympians are way too low, but I digress.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 10 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus; the comments in support of merger were apparently written when these categories contained very few articles, but they are now better populated with 10, 4 and 19 member pages respectively. There is scope for a fresh nomination of Category:Christians of Al-Andalus for merger to Category:Mozarabic people as these appear to have the same scope (along with its parent, see the discussion below). I considered merging the Rashidun category as a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. with permission to re-create it if more members can be found, but instead I am leaving it for now as some pages were only added yesterday by Mugsalot (talk · contribs); if it remains at only 4 pages then I suggest a re-nomination later for merger to multiple parents, which should include Category:Christianity in the Rashidun Caliphate. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christians of Al-Andalus to Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world Category:Mozarabic people
• Propose merging Category:Christians of the Rashidun Caliphate to Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world and Category:People of the Rashidun Caliphate
• Propose merging Category:Christians of the Umayyad Caliphate to Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world and Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the three categories contain only 4 articles together and although I presume that some expansion is possible I don't expect they will ever grow to big categories. For Al-Andalus a second merge target is not needed because the one article is already in Category:People of the Emirate of Córdoba. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Support the mergers but don't like the names of the targets. How can one be both Christian and "of Islam"? Shouldn't they read something like Category:Christians during the medieval Islamic period or Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic period? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, I'll submit a rename proposal for the target one of the following days. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See here for that proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger, unless these can be better populated. Do we not have articles on Christian bishops, patriarchs and Coptic popes? If these remain small categories I would suggest the target should be Category:Christians in medieval Islamic states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Listed categories are less than 2 months old and were clearly created as placeholders. They don't even include dozens of existing articles in the Wiki that clearly belong in that category (one example out of many, Category:Translators of medieval Islam many of whom were Christians). Also, I seriously question the claim by OP that they will never grow. The Rashidun caliphate spanned 30 years, Umayyad 90 years and Al-Andalus around 800 years. I'm sure there are many people in those empires that are yet to be tagged. The category for Christians under Abbasid Caliphate lists 45 pages and the Fatimid caliphate currently has around 15 articles (Category:Copts in the Fatimid Caliphate). Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Copts in the Fatimid Caliphate nearly only contains articles about popes who are obviously notable people. Al-Andalus did not have similarly high-ranked Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the category extends far beyond just clerics. See Category:Mozarabs. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Al-Andalusi: nice catch, thanks. I have changed the merge target accordingly, assuming that Christians of Al-Andalus are equivalent to Mozarab people. That is correct, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep, although there is scope for a re-nomination of Category:Christianity in Al-Andalus for merger to Category:Mozarabs as they seem to have the same scope. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in the Abbasid Caliphate (move article to Category:Christianity in the medieval Islamic world and Category:Abbasid Caliphate)
• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in Al-Andalus (move article to Category:Christianity in the medieval Islamic world and Category:Al-Andalus)
• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in the Fatimid Caliphate (move articles to Category:Christianity in the medieval Islamic world and Category:Fatimid Caliphate)
• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in the Rashidun Caliphate (move articles to Category:Christianity in the medieval Islamic world and Category:Rashidun Caliphate)
• Propose deleting Category:Christianity in the Umayyad Caliphate (move article to Category:Christianity in the medieval Islamic world and Category:Umayyad Caliphate)

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the five categories contain only 9 articles together. The subcategories with Christians should not be included in the merger, they are already in Category:Christians of medieval Islam Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world and, for example, Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Dating "by century" or "by period" is best. Dating by ruling dynasty is not usually a good idea. That includes "Elizabethan era" dating. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Fatimid cat as it has 5 articles. Merge rest per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: See my response under the discussion for "Christians of medieval Islam". Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:SMALLCAT has been cited above as evidence to delete. However, if anyone actually takes the time to read SMALLCAT they will see that "this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth ... may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". Therefore keep as per SMALLCAT. Greenshed (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so what will be the cause of the realistic growth here? (Apart from the fact that Wikipedia grows slowly every year.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• At a guess, I would anticipate that the category growth rate would be modest but SMALLCAT only says "realistic potential for growth", not "realistic potential for speedy growth". Greenshed (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In that sense every category has potential for growth so this way of reading would make the clause redundant altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. Take for example Category:Royal Canadian Air Force air marshals of World War II. There's a known and finite number of RCAF air marshals who served during World War II and that number will not increase over the passage of time. Greenshed (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok change that to nearly every category. Still reading it like this makes the clause redundant altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are potentially an infinite number of very small categories with no prospect for growth that might be created or proposed. For example, there was only one Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshal of World War II and so by any measure Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force air marshals of World War II would be a bad idea. SMALLCAT is meaningful and practical as it stands; it just does not suit the purposes of the nominator. Greenshed (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it does not match with the way I read it. 'Realistic growth potential' should mean, imho, that there is a 'specific reason for growth of this particular category'. I maintain that otherwise it is a pretty meaningless phrase. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The history of Christianity and other religions in the various caliphates is a subject of significant academic study and wider commentary. However, we don't even yet have stand-alone articles on Christianity in the Abbasid Caliphate, Christianity in Al-Andalus, Christianity in the Fatimid Caliphate, Christianity in the Rashidun Caliphate and Christianity in the Umayyad Caliphate. It is therefore not unreasonable to posit that there is realistic growth potential in line or perhaps even ahead of how "Wikipedia grows slowly every year." Additionally, Category:Christianity in the Fatimid Caliphate covers 20 articles (including those in its sub cat) and so I would not even call that example a small category. Greenshed (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Greenshed and Marcocapelle: Rather than disagreeing with each other, I think our joint target should be the lousy WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline. How many articles do you need before it's not small, what does a realistic potential for growth mean in practice, and why do we encourage the rapid fire creation of dozens of useless categories that automatically become untouchable because they are now "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? These arguments have been going on for years in CFD and WP:SMALLCAT's poor wording seems to create conflict rather than consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete /Keep Abbasid & Fatimid Per my (subjective) reading of WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I didn't think the disagreement above was really a bad thing. More importantly, I take it, @RevelationDirect:, that it you want to get rid / merge of all the categories nominated, including Category:Christianity in the Fatimid Caliphate even though it contains 5 articles directly and a further 15 in its sub-cat? I'd say that was quite a hard line on what constitutes a non-viably small category. How many article does a category need before, in your view it's useful? Personally, I'm ok with five as it supports the reader's navigation around related content. Greenshed (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't take it as anything other than a sincere discussion by two editors trying to make the encyclopedia better. But was WP:SMALLCAT helpful in reaching a consensus? (I agree on the 5 article cutoff and updated my vote above, having only clicked on 2 originally.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tend to the view that 5+ articles and were viable while under 5 and it depends (growth potential, part of a category scheme etc) but would note that it's been hard to get consensus on these numbers in the part which is why SMALLCAT is not specific. Incidentally, I was just taking a look at Christians and Others in the Umayyad State for an indication of growth potential. Greenshed (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are Islamic states, and the history of these states is usually written from the dominant Muslim perspective. Christianity is therefore a very distinct topic in these early Muslim states/societies, which each of these states treated differently (most notably the Fatimids, who even had Christian viziers, but the Andalusi experience is also entirely different from that of the eastern caliphates). Each of these states was home to different Christian communities, from the Copts to the Nestorians and the Melkites, each of which has its own history and traditions under these regimes. This in turn leads to highly specialized modern studies in this area, which cannot be done justice by upmerging to over-generic categories. WP:SMALLCAT is furthermore entirely inapplicable here. Yes, the categories are underpopulated, but they definitely are a long way from being exhausted. Constantine ✍ 21:01, 2 July 2020 (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.