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.
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:1905 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season
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.
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.
@Nederlandse Leeuw, @Marcocapelle Etazeta wasn't a ruler on her own right, she was ruling in the name of her infant sons, as regent. In Hellenistic period Corinth wasn't ruled by kings, but by tyrants, both Alexander and his wife were tyrants. Cratesipolis was also tyrant of Corinth. Agathoclea Theotropus was regent of her son.
Tyrants can be kings and queens, sometimes ruling only a single city. "One of the earliest known uses of the word tyrant (in Greek) was by the poet Archilochus, who lived three centuries before Plato, in reference to king Gyges of Lydia." However, "Alexander renounced his alliance with Antigonus and was bribed with the title of governor of the Peloponnese to reconcile himself to Cassander." Presumably Cratesipolis is miscategorized as tyrant, as she was only a governor "in subjection under Cassander." Cassander was styled a king. William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Having a very short reign is never a reason not to categorise someone as a monarch; e.g. Dipendra of Nepal was king for only 4 days while in a coma, but legally, he was the king, and is thus categorised as such. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't see what the point of all these recent moves has been. I don't think "ruler" is worse than "monarch" in many cases. Not to mention some ancient rulers weren't monarchs but sometimes diarchs or tetriarchs etc.★Trekker (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to understand the background of this process, I'd recommend you to read the Rulers CfM. If you don't think "monarchs" is worse than "rulers" in this CfR, there is no reason for you to oppose this CfR. If you don't care, there is no reason for you to participate in this CfR in the first place (or you could just vote 'Neutral'). Lastly, there are no 'diarchs or tetriarchs' in this CfR, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents of the past several months have shown the community is thinking otherwise. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it has been decided to move away from "rulers" to something clearer and more defining on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the community is recognising that these noms have a point. And I still don't see you objecting to anything related to this specific CfR. If you could provide examples of "harmful" moves, and reasons why they are "harmful", that might be helpful for the community to take into account. Otherwise it seems little more than a vague general objection to a process based on an unsupported personal opinion, which provides nothing useful for the community to take into account. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2023 (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: I'm just going to close this as No action - please feel free to start a new discussion at editorial discretion. - jc3709:01, 7 May 2023 (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 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 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:Association football events curtailed due to the September 11 attacks
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: Being the top scorer in one season of the Ukrainian Cup is WP:NOTDEFINING, because there are comparatively few games in a cup tournament like this compared to a league season. And no evidence of significant coverage of these top scorers. If this category is deleted, then its two parent categories will be empty, and they are not needed either, since Category:Association football league top scorers exists, which has sub-categories that look not to violate NOTDEFINING (and which have some notable associated lists for top scorers in some leagues). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2023 (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 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: Poorly named WP:SMALLCAT. We don't currently have any scheme of categorizing former rivers by what particular process ended their riverhood, so it's questionable whether this category would need to exist at all, particularly if it can't be much, much more populated than just two articles -- but even if it's justified, it still needs to be renamed as this is not the correct naming format for Wikipedia categories. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles fail WP:CATVERIFY, as there is no clear consensus that erosion was the cause. Not enough articles where this category is definitely applicable to justify its existence. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective. There's no agreement on what it means for a river to face substantial erosion. In fact, one might argue that all rivers are in some sense worn down from erosion. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (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: Is this huge category necessary? does not seem necessary to categorize pages via death by one disease. Ebbedlila (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose as it's a container category, and some of the child categories are very well populated, so doesn't make sense to delete the container unless the child categories were all deleted beforehand. Whilst many of the subcategories may violate WP:SMALLCAT, not all of them do e.g. Category:Deaths from pneumonia in Germany has 77 people listed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2023 (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:Online tickets selling Android applications in India
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: Badly named category for an overly granular intersection of traits. While we do have categories such as Category:Travel ticket search engines, we do not have any scheme of subcategorizing them for platform (Android vs. iPhone vs. Windows, etc.), and it's not clear that India would have a special need for such categories if other countries don't have them. And even if there were a basis for keeping this, it would have to be renamed anyway. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2023 (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: Category which exists solely to hold a list and two differently-named redirects back to that same list. This kind of thing does not assist navigation at all; it would be fine if the tours had their own standalone articles, but we don't need a category for three different ways of getting to the same article. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might have made sense if it held three articles, but it's one list article and two redirects to that list. Not worth a category. Pichpich (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (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: Category which exists solely to hold a list and a bunch of differently-named redirects back to that same list. This kind of thing does not assist navigation at all; it would be fine if the tours all had their own standalone articles, but we don't need a category for five different ways of getting to the same article. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2023 (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. We could perhaps build a list as suggested, but this category of 8 unsourced entries isn’t even a big help towards doing that. So we can follow the delete consensus here. Courcelles (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen The Panic in Needle Park and had no recollection that it lacked music but my experiences are secondary if the articles treat this is defining. The China Syndrome lists a music credit in the infobox while The Birds has a whole section on the electronic music so I'm wondering if this grouping is even accurate. (If retained, support the rename.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Although we commonly associate films with soundtracks/music, there is no rule which states films must have a soundtrack or music; especially for documentary films this may not be necessary to tell a story. (I've seen plenty of documentaries wherein major parts consist of interviews without background music, and the transition from one scene to the next or the intro and outro appear to be deliberately devoid of music). It's also not a thing that couldn't be added later in a second edition, home edition or director's cut or something, and presumably it wouldn't fundamentally change the contents or message of the film, so again WP:NONDEFINING. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2023 (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.
Support as template's creator. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)