January 16
Category:Tragedy anime and manga
- 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This one has been back for a while, but like the newly created Category:Tragedy video games, there's no parent article to explain the term and a quick spot check of 3-4 articles found none of this mention the word tragedy at all. Without any context or sourcing, this should be deleted. Sources don't discuss video games, manga or anime as being in a "tragedy" genre. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I don't see the connection to "tragedy" either from my browsing through the category content. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:12, 17 January 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:Tragedy video games
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that was populated with several games. I reverted these additions as its essentially unsourced for all of them. There no main article or term within the video game area of "Tragedy video game". It's not a genre. -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 16 January 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:Ror
Category:Christianity in Pakistan by administrative unit
- 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) 23:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is no need for a container category layer like this in a country that has a small Christian minority who are mainly concentrated in one administrative unit (namely Punjab). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 16 January 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:Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification, the current names may wrongly suggest that the entire Holy Roman Empire, and entire Switzerland, were a prince-bishopric. Perhaps the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" should also be nominated to "Prince-bishoprics in" but that is probably less needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support for the first since the Prince-bishoprics were "of" the Empire, not just sited "in" the Empire. Would oppose changes to the parent categories "Prince-bishoprics of" since the same potential for confusion does not arise. Support the second proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename target is a better form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong opposition. As Laurel Lodged indicates, the Prince-Bishops were "of" the Empire, i.e., their secular jurisdictions were (at least nominally) granted by the Emperor, they were not merely located in the Empire, and re-naming the category would obscure this fact. Even stipulating that the potential confusion cited here exists, if it were a sufficiently widespread problem to warrant comment, it would be easy to dispel. This same objection applies to the parent category idea. With regards to Switzerland, "of Switzerland" is a perfectly valid construction; "of Switzerland" can be read synonymously with "Swiss," and they were Swiss simply by virtue of having been located in Switzerland. Furthermore, it would not be universally valid to refer to these ecclesiastical principalities as being "in Switzerland;" the Prince-Bishopric of Basel had lost its Swiss territories prior to mediatization, and thus, after 1792, was no longer "in Switzerland" in any meaningful sense. --Masque (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. If a reader assumes that some prince-bishops being of the Holy Roman Empire implies the entire Holy Roman Empire was assigned to prince-bishops, that is their own logical mistake. I don't think the category suggests it. Meanwhile, the proposed rename target, while not necessarily grammatically incorrect, certainly flies in the face of typical grammatical convention. ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Everything here is already properly categorized as being in Serbia or Bosnia or Croatia or Kosovo or Montenegro as it is, so categorizing them for the country they used to be in alongside that is simply redundant and unnecessary. Especially given that some of the entries here didn't start until after Yugoslavia broke up, and were thus never "in Yugoslavia" in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
