Category:Six Russian strategic weapons unveiled on 2018[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: The Six in the title is unnecessary and not found elsewhere, and would need to be changed anyway if the category changed size. Danski454 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - the date of unveiling is not WP:DEFINING, it's just WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. There's an argument that the date of entry into service is important enough to be worth a category, but "post-Cold war" is sufficient - the date of unveiling is less signficant than the service date. Le Deluge (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the category say "on 2018"? That's not correct usage anyway, shouldn't it be "during 2018" or "in 2018"?... Concur with above rationales. Shearonink (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (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: INS Vikrant is a unique ship and is not part of a class. The class page has now been merged to the ship page. There is no point in keeping a category for a single page. —Gazoth (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2019 (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: Two categories that describe the same thing. Dotoilage (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support They seem to have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful. I agree that there's no real need to retain separate categories, since Greeks won't generally show up in non-Greek mythologies. However, Roman mythology may be an exception; if Troy be considered Greek, the Aeneid may well have mythological Greek characters who don't show up in Greek mythology. Entellus, for example, was a Greek figure who (judging by his article) only appears in Roman mythology; if he were in this category, it wouldn't be good to merge him to "Characters in Greek mythology". When this is closed as "merge", it would be wise for someone to run a search of the contents and mark articles for review if they have the string aene or virgil anywhere, and then to merge those articles only if it can be manually confirmed that they aren't unique to Roman mythology. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"since Greeks won't generally show up in non-Greek mythologies." Wrong. The Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies feature several figures from Greek mythology, as supposed ancestors of Thor. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with the word of caution just given. The Aeneid is essentially a work of fiction to provide Rome with a foundation myth epic. Greek myth is properly described as myth. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDimadick, I should have been clearer; I meant that non-Greeks won't often be original to non-Greek myths. Borrowing figures from elsewhere is quite different from creating them, and as long as you come from Greek mythology, you can be a character in Greek mythology whether or not you're also a character in another mythology too. (For example, Wade of the Helsingas makes a quick appearance in Tolkien in a passing reference to Eärendil, but that doesn't mean he's not a character from Germanic mythology.) My concern regarding Virgil is of no basis in this particular case; someone ran a search of the contents for those strings, I've manually reviewed them, and all of them were borrowed by Virgil from Greek sources. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2019 (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: The cat creator (a banned editor) clearly just chose the wrong word: all of the articles are about paint, NOT "painting". Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per last two contributions to match the main article. Painting tends to refer to artwork. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2019 (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: Too little content. Some individual articles may need to be upmerged but for the most part, they are all categorized correctly already. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- my view is "one franchise: one category". We have a subcat for a series of novels. Spinoffs from that could go into the novels category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (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.
Delete - This task should be done by a list article. If there are multiple lists, we might allow a category covering them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2019 (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:Child sexual abuse in religious groups[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: I propose recasting these categories either as broader "X and Y" topic-intersection categories (Option A) or as narrower "sexual abuse scandals" set categories (Option B), with a preference for "scandals" over "cases" to align with Category:Religious scandals and also because "cases" suggests the articles are always about legal cases, which they are not. As for the subcategories, I propose they follow the parent category's naming convention, moving away from the ambiguous Fooian ..., where it is not clear what the word is modifying—e.g. abuse cases related to Christian sex, cases related to sex abuse by Christians, cases related to sex abuse of Christians, etc. (Pinging 2 categories' creator, User:Monochrome Monitor; the other creators are either blocked or inactive) -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am purposely omitting Category:Catholic sex abuse cases to avoid discussion of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church". There can be a separate discussion for that category once this one is settled. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are you proposing narrowing the scope from sexual abuse to child sexual abuse? It would help if you'd provide a little more detail on that issue. Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the categories are all on this narrower topic, that's fine then. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support either A or B. The articles in these categories are in fact about child sexual abuse and in addition the parent category is already called "Child sexual abuse in religious groups". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for option B as this option is more specific to the actual subject matter. Option A seems a tad to general of a title choice for me although that's just my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer B - "A" might imply that the religion condones sexual abuse, whereas all of these ones condemn it, at least in theory. As we have recently learnt, practice where sinful humans are involved falls below the ideal. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2019 (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:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees[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.
Background In the past, we've deleted similar US state-level sports halls of fame categories here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These people are notable for their achievements, not for being given a "hall of fame" award. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, yada yada.... I'm running out of new things to say about these categories. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Proposal: Rather than cleaning up these messes after the fact, I think we should give serious consideration to requiring pre-approval for all new awards categories. If I'm not mistaken, that's how it works with stub categories, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The award categories is one of the few subject trees where I see more categories that hinder navigation than ones that benefit it. Not sure what the appetitite is for such a restriction or how it would technically work. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable achievement....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- a typical OCAWARD case. I think we have occasionally kept "Hall of Fame" categories, where the hall is an actual museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2019 (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.
