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.
Potential Keep but Rename to expand abbreviation. I am not sure if we should classify this as a High School or Tertiary College or a hybrid of these, but in either case an alumni category would be permissible. The problem is that we only have a main article and no notable alumni. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 1 May 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.
Comment -- Some years ago, someone spent a lot of time in converting all booian fooian categories (except American) to the format proposed here. In principle, I would support this being extended to American categories, but this needs to be done on a whole sale basis, not piecemeal. I will accordingly only support this if it is a test nom to be followed by a wholesale one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron and Rathfelder: The category format for ethnic/cultural groups in the US was agreed upon in CfD to be Category:Fooian-American society. Therefore, any subcategory still using Fooian American (or even Fooian Canadian) could, and should be, nominated for speedy renaming under WP:C2C. I am all in favour of a mass nomination (but has no time to do it myself). Place Clichy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 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.
Support This category only contains a main article. All "Booian Fooian" categories (except American) were converted to the target format some years ago. For WP purposes they are the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 12 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Producers of albums is not a characteristic that is automatically WP:defining. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Categorization states that if an album is defined by a particular characteristic, then it is likely that the object of the characteristic (e.g. "albums produced by X") will be notable in that capacity and qualify (per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MUSIC) for its own Wikipedia article: if such an article does not exist, then the characteristic is probably not defining. This leaves me free to follow the majority view expressed below. As for listifying, that would in essence recreate the discography part of the deleted article, but I do not find that that is warranted. – FayenaticLondon19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories are not reliant on the creation of an article in the name space. While WP may have decided that Casey Bates is not personally notable, he has produced 22 albums which are notable enough to be included in WP. The need to collect these albums together by producer has been established. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the claims of his production are cited. Most are Original Research. I have also nominated a round of the albums for deletion.--Theredproject (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being produced by someone who is not notable cannot be a defining category. Were it so, then the producer would be notable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, you are conflating WP:DEFINING with WP:NOTABLE. There are 1000s of examples of categories where there is not 'supporting article.' If your argument is that producing an album is not notable, then the whole Category:Albums by producer should be nominated for deletion or this one should not be singled out separately. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest listification. While there is apparently not enough content to create an article about the person behind this category, can we at least create a List of albums produced by Casey Bates. [Conversely, if lists of albums by producer are not allowed, we should certainly not categorize albums by producer.] Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 25 May 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.
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.
Rename/merge all to Category:Seasons in North Macedonian football with a headnote to the effect that it includes the period before the country was renamed. This is standard practice with merged and renamed entities, a principle originally developed for alumni categories for renamed or merged colleges. The individual seasons should not be renamed, because they reflect the name of the time. This is all about the same place, a renamed country not a new one. We have also applied this to colonies/republics that have changed names, such as Upper Volta/Burkino Faso. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment -- The present name of the country is North Macedonia. That change is not controversial. As I stated, this is a renamed country, not a new one. As a matter of precedent, categories since the change of name should use the current name. Those for older periods should use the former one. But they should share a parent with the current name. In this case a demonym is appropriate which is obviously North Macedonian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anyway (in either direction); and prefer option A. The RFC closed as no consensus with respect to this specific issue, personally I would prefer mirroring to the new country name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 8 May 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.
Comment by category creator - I created the category as I had an Indian supercentenarian to categorise and a separate category per nationality appeared to be the standard. I have no personal preference but I would say rather than adjust this single item, some form of standard needs to be in place to categorise all the other nationalities. Periglio (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- category has already been emptied, and was an overly narrow overcategorisation. Deletion would just be uncontroversial maintenance. ReykYO!14:32, 7 May 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.
Keep 2020/Delete 2021WP:CRYSTALBALL makes an exception for events that are in planning and likely to happen: the 2020 rides are all started and expected to open in early spring for the summer rush. The naming is certainly a little awkward for a future event but i don't think the maintenance of flipping that back is worth it. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 8 May 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.
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.
We don't have a main article on a round city but the header of the category itself offers the following explanation:
"Cities that were designed as circle, notably those of Mesopotamia and Persia. This does not include cities like Ctesiphon, the round-ness of which was due to natural growth of the city rather than deliberate design from the beginning."
The Round city of Baghdad is a promising start but from there the "round"-ness of articles in this category quickly become less defining: Moscow mentions transport "ring" roads, Darab had earthworks arranged in a "circle", while Erbil has a citadel shaped in an "oval". Maybe there was a trend with "roundness" in urban planning at some point but we need more verifiable content before start a category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In a period when cities were walled, they were often round or polygonal, unless their boundary was dictated by other physical features, such as a river or the shape of the hill on which they were built. A circular city will have the shortest possible wall, compared to the area enclosed, thus limiting the length of wall to be defended against enemies. This is thus not trivial. Cities with a circular ring road may have this because it was built along the line of the city walls. This is thus not TRIVIAL. I do not see this as a case of WP:OR in its usual context of invented facts. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The geometric shape that a city's original plan (or development growth) happen to take on is not a defining characteristic of the city — even if a city started out round in ancient times, it didn't necessarily always stay round. Yes, the Round City of Baghdad is a different matter, because it's actually called that — but that does not mean we need a category for every city on earth that happens to be roughly circular in shape, but whose articles feature no content about why the shape might be significant at all. And a city having a ring road doesn't prove a damn thing about its planned or actual shape, either, because the ring road doesn't necessarily follow the shape of the city itself — cities that are square, rectangular, and/or irregularly-shaped because of a lake or river can still have ring roads too. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question whether roundness is attested, it is a question whether roundness is a defining characteristic of those cities. Listification based on Creswell is a better idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 9 May 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.