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.
I just made it today. Probably could have resolved this between ourselves. Category is better populated now. czar⨹04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it still needs to be discussed. Are all participants defined by being a part of this? The listed legal action seems to be about a book and some people and not the convention. There may still not be enough or the inclusion criteria needs a big tightening up. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I included those whose pages shows a strong affiliation with the convention. Most of the subjects were also participants in Jason Scott's DEF CON documentary. czar⨹17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete. The subjects of this category are connected by strong, definitive association with the DEF CON event. This connection is prominent in most of the mentioned articles. The nom's conditions (of the cat being underpopulated) were corrected. czar⨹00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is "that"? The "definitive" part is that the subjects are defined by their connection to the DEF CON event, and their roles in the event are mentioned prominently on their pages. czar⨹04:28, 23 February 2015 (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 and purge to subcat; as there is not a strong consensus on the name, I will rename the category Category:Religious (Catholicism) to match the new name of the article Religious (Catholicism), with no bar to early re-nomination if this is unsatisfactory. It seems better to include some form of "Catholic" in the name than to use potentially ambiguous alternatives. – FayenaticLondon16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Religious vows and other such. What I think is being misunderstood here is the usage of the word "religious". In this case it doesn't merely mean someone or something related to a religion, but rather religious orders. - jc3702:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, just from reading over several articles in the cat. That said, it could use some cleanup. For example, I think it would probably make more sense to subcat Category:Scapulars than to add them individually like this. - jc3708:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Carlossuarez46, I think we may want to go a step up the tree, as it were, and rename to Category:Consecrated life. (See Consecrated life.) It fits better in the category scheme (it's parent includes both the religious and the secular institutes), and removes the need for disambiguation, and allows for further splitting if necessary in the future. - jc3715:07, 30 March 2015 (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.
Support per previous comments about political units not being good dividers for species. More useful list format is already present so category can be deleted. SFB21:20, 15 February 2015 (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.
Comment I think there are some issues going on here that aren't addressed by the nomination. The main category Category:Greek colonies frames itself as an Ancient level category, but at face value there is no reason to assume this (and exclude Byzantine-era colonies for example). The Greek colonies tree should probably be Category:Ancient Greek colonies instead. At that point we have to question the purpose of what distinction we are actually making between "colonies" and "sites". Also note the existence of Category:Greek colonies in Russia with a child Category:Ancient Greek sites in Russia, whose contents are all colonies (as the tree suggests). SFB21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My general impression is that there is a huge amount of these articles both in the "Archaeological sites" tree and in the "Ancient cities" tree that are actually mainly about cities ('colonies' in this case) and not or hardly about archaeological sites. The Libyan category is an illustration of this general impression. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. There is a distinction between the history of ancient cities and archaeological sites, which may not specifically relate to cities (or colonies). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that there is a distinction between the two! However in Libya we don't have enough material supporting an Ancient Greek sites category, while the articles in this category are actually about cities with a history as a Greek colony. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Marcocapelle: does Athrun, Libya belong in this category? Not a rhetorical question - I don't presume to know. The article seems to imply that it may be Erythrum, but never says so - and I have looked for some reliable source to indicate the connection, but have found only contrary evidence. If it isn't Erythrum, it likely was not a colony. Was it even an "ancient" Greek site? The article seems to indicate Byzantine prominence, but that does not foreclose prior Greek antecedents which if not colonial remain an ancient "Greek site" which would merit retaining the distinction that the nominator acknowledges exists but we lack any non-colony sites (except, perhaps, Athrun). Ideas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either, but at least it's a town and not a site. Just for clarification, I haven't meant that all these current Libyan articles would fit in the Greek colonies tree, I merely meant to say that for the majority of articles Greek colonies is much more appropriate than archaeological sites. So, in conclusion, even after renaming there may still be a need for purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (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:Armenia under-21 international footballers
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: This is really unnecessary as there is already a category for Armenia international footballers. If this is not deleted, then more needless category will be made like Armenia U-19, U18, U17, and so forth. For Armenian footballers in general, we have the category "Armenian footballers". Now if they are more notables who have played for their respective national team, then you could add "Armenia international footballers." The rest are unnecessary. With that, you might as add a "Armenian amateur footballers." I find it unnecessary multiple subcategories when there is a category that fits all. Hovhannes Karapetyan 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Listify I don't think having played for a country at a non-senior level is a definitive enough feature to warrant a category. Those players who have competed at this level usually don't have anything much more in common than another high level player who never played for that national age category. On that basis, I think those subjects don't warrant their own internal navigation structure. However, I do think a this is useful information to have on Wikipedia, but one that would be much better suited to a list format, where we can quantify things like number of appearances, date of first appearance etc which brings the context which makes this grouping relevant. Obviously, I'd be much happier to have this debate at a tree-level, as this rationale is not Armenia-specific. SFB21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- The question is whether junior level players are notable at that stage. I suspect that they are not. If so, we should not have the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2015 (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.
czar ⨹ 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)