Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 6



Category:Category:Reform synagogues in the United States Virgin Islands

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting category


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with 1 entry which is also in parent category. Zerach (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as wholly unnecessary. Though that is a pretty impressive synagogue, it doesn't need a redundant category. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion, as this would remove the member article from one of the parents, namely Category:Reform synagogues in the United States. No objection to merging to that category. Zerach: please check all parents when making such a nomination. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:LBEF alumni

 * 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. MER-C 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lbef alumni


 * Nominator's rationale: No relevant content. Just one, unreferenced, article, about LBEF. Rathfelder (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - "This category includes currently enrolled or already passed out students of Lord Buddha Education Foundation" - none have passed out as yet, it seems. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, as an empty category (disregarding the topic article). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Empty category. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Montenegrin American

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Montenegrin American to Category:American people of Montenegrin descent‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Only one, eponymous article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmains has a fair point below. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * not agree the categories are not the same. Category:Montenegrin American is and properly belongs to its parent category Category:European-American society with its 63 sub-categories, which is not being nominated for any change, so this should not be changed either.  Category:American people of Montenegrin descent‎ belongs to its parent category  Category:American people of European descent, a different category tree. Hmains (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only article is already in Category:European-American society. Why does it need its own category? Rathfelder (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Merge. In principle, the category should be renamed to something like Category:Montenegrin-American society according to the format agreed upon in this CfD, and could be speedied per WP:C2C. However, there is no specific content besides main article Montenegrin Americans, which is already present in and . There is therefore no need for a separate category. Place Clichy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Place Clichy. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Montenegrin Canadian

 * 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. MER-C 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Montenegrin Canadian to Category:Canadian people of Montenegrin descent‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Only one, eponymous, article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmains has a fair point below. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * not agree the categories are not the same. Category:Montenegrin Canadian is and properly belongs to its parent category Category:European Canadian with its 38 sub-categories, which is not being nominated for any change, so this should not be changed either. Category:Canadian people of Montenegrin descent belongs to its parent category  Category:Canadian people of European descent, a different category tree. Hmains (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge. In principle, the category should be renamed to something like Category:Montenegrin-Canadian society according to the format agreed upon in this CfD, and could be speedied per WP:C2C. However, there is no specific content besides main article Montenegrin Canadians, which is already present in (which should itself be renamed) and . There is therefore no need for a separate category. Place Clichy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Peterkingiron. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Albums produced by Casey Bates

 * 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. WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting albums produced by casey bates


 * Nominator's rationale: I have nominated Casey Bates at AFD thus am also nominating the category as GNG fail b/c no WP:RS. See Articles for deletion/Casey Bates Theredproject (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - seems to have produced a lot of albums for someone allegedly of no consequence. Oculi (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Delete Producer is not notable, no SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 *  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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete per nom, and now deleted main article. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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:Golden Age of Hollywood actors

 * 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. MER-C 10:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting golden age of hollywood actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 10: too subjective and vague. The decades in film and actors by nationality categories have clearer scope and should be used instead. DrKay (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. No clear line for when it started and ended. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT too. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Seasons in Macedonian football

 * 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: option A: merge Category:Seasons in Macedonian football to Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging either:
 * OPTION A: Category:Seasons in Macedonian football to Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football
 * or
 * OPTION B: Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football to Category:Seasons in Macedonian football
 * Nominator's rationale: Regardless of what decisions are made at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, there doesn't seem to be any distinction in scope between these two categories, and they each have the same two parent categories: Category:Association football seasons by country and Category:Football in North Macedonia.
 * So I don't see any purpose in retaining both. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A - avoid the adjective, cf Category:Seasons in New Zealand association football. Oculi (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B - 'New Zealand' is the denonym, and it is standard to use the denonym (see e.g. et al). GiantSnowman 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is a great deal of controversy about whether 'Macedonian' is the denonym (cf 'Northern Irish' - Category:Seasons in Northern Irish football has somehow survived so far). Oculi (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Peterkingiron, I oppose that proposal to use the adjective "North Macedonian". That term is highly controversial, and is still being debated at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019_RFC.
 * That is why I proposed one other of the two existing names, both of which appear to be acceptable. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The RFC is currently in the process of being closed. We may well follow the outcome of that closure for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @Peterkingiron, as noted above, the demonym is a highly controversial issue. The arbcom-mandated RFC at WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019_RFC has not yet been closed.  A one-off CFD discussion cannot prejudge that decision. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeing as Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC is now closed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge to Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football (option A). The updated version of WP:MOSMAC (adopted on 7 May 2019) is very specific that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred. Place Clichy (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Seasons in North Macedonia football per Place Clichy. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Indian supercentenarians

 * 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. MER-C 10:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indian supercentenarians


 * Nominator's rationale: There were only two people there. I moved them to appropriate parent categories and . — JFG talk 18:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - there were 5 acc to Google. Reduced by edits such as this. Oculi (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because those articles were miscategorized; unverified longevity claims go in Category:Longevity claims (for 110-130 year old claims) or Category:Longevity myths. Two of the removed pages are now in the former, Habib Miyan is in the latter. Supercentenarians categories are for verified cases. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment The category has already been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- category has already been emptied, and was an overly narrow overcategorisation. Deletion would just be uncontroversial maintenance. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I was saying. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The category has already been emptied, so this defunct overly narrow overcategorization is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Amusement rides introduced in 2020
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * amusement rides introduced in 2020
 * amusement rides introduced in 2021
 * Nominator's rationale: It can't have been introduced in 2020, we're not there yet! Ditto Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2021. Proposed to open in... might work. Doug Weller  talk 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete both. I created both just to fill redlinks in Special:WantedCategories, but I entirely agree with Doug Weller.  WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL etc. If these things are actually opened in the relevant year, then add them to the appropriate category ... but we don't yet know whether the plans will be fulfilled. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep 2020/Delete 2021 WP: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)


 * 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.

Official documents
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Last category will be renamed to Category:State archives. MER-C 09:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents to Category:Government documents
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents by country to Category:Government documents by country
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Afghanistan to Category:Government documents of Afghanistan
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Germany to Category:Government documents of Germany
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Ireland to Category:Government documents of Ireland
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Pakistan to Category:Government documents of Pakistan
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of the Philippines to Category:Government documents of the Philippines
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Poland to Category:Government documents of Poland
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Romania to Category:Government documents of Romania
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of the Soviet Union to Category:Government documents of the Soviet Union
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of Sweden to Category:Government documents of Sweden
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of the United Kingdom to Category:Government documents of the United Kingdom
 * Propose renaming Category:Official documents of the United States to Category:Government documents of the United States
 * Propose renaming Category:Official document archives to Category:Government document archives
 * Nominator's rationale: rename for more clarity on the scope of these categories. "Official" is rather vague, "government" is more to the point. See also this earlier discussion from 2010, closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No objection but something like Category:State archives would be better for the last item. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The latter is a good point, or perhaps even merge the archives category to Category:National archives. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support rename w/modification to archive cat per Marcocapelle. Her Pegship (speak) 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:2009–09 in Romanian football
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: speedy deleted per WP:G7. Created by me to fill a redlink in Special:WantedCategories, without spotting misnaming. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting 2009–09 in romanian football


 * Nominator's rationale: same year on both sides of hyphen Naraht (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Round cities
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. MER-C 10:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Round cities
 * Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:TRIVIALCAT or WP:V/WP:OR
 * 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)


 * Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete, not a defining characteristic (the Round City of Baghdad is an exception). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Gor, Darab and Veh-Ardashir are similarly named as "Round City of X". --Z 14:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the those articles even mention that as an alternate name let alone have it sourced. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Neither trivial nor OR. The circular city planning is well attested in reliable sources and already mentioned in Wikipedia articles such as Firuzabad, Fars (Minar (Firuzabad)), Round city of Baghdad. P.S. This source cites Creswell, A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, 236, for a list of these cities. --Z 14:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.