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:do not merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The both articles in this medieval forts category are about a castle. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question When is a castle not a fort? The fort and castle tree are sister trees, but I don't understand why forts isn't the parent of castles. I think we need a history expert here to clarify. SFB 16:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology isn't perfect, but... A medieval castle is often defined as the private, fortified residence of a lord or noble; some of the differences between this and a fort is that many forts are not private, and may not be residences. Part of the challenge here is that the word "fort" is not synonymous with "fortification" in English (e.g. most people would agree that Warwick Castle is a fortification; I've never heard anyone term it a "fort"). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Castle, Fortification and the header of Category:Forts in England, my understanding is that a castle is an exclusively medieval (9th-15th century) representation of a fortification, so fort could indeed be the parent of castle. By the way, this doesn't hinder the nomination, on the contrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that makes it just a bit trickier to parent Castles to Forts. However, this doesn't say that the two castles that are currently in Category:Medieval forts in England aren't castles, so it doesn't harm the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Marco. The contents of this tree seem to be coastal defence forts, some of which are called castle. The differnece is that a castle was partly a residence for its owner or a castellan, whereas therse were primarily defensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Just to be certain about it, do you mean 'upmerge per Marco' or 'keep per Fayenatic London'? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both cats. Difficult one this. The terminology is not fixed in stone and these "forts" are often also referred to as "gun castles" (as were the later Device Forts). Neither is it true to say that castles were purely the private residential strongholds of lords (since many castles were actually royal strongholds and were garrisoned just like these "forts" were - Dover Castle was also built for coastal defence, and nobody would call that a fort) or that they had a residential aspect which forts didn't have (since a fort's garrison also lived in it). However, I think it's generally accepted that in medieval England a fort was a small fortification built for coastal defence, so it's probably reasonable to keep this category. "Forts", though, is most certainly not a parent category to "Castles". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2014 (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:administrative close: nominator requested closing (see discussion). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose creating a new Category:Norman architecture as a parent for the previous category that contains the non-English articles
Nominator's rationale: This is basically a split proposal, to create a parent category (global) and a child category (English). The category currently contains English and Sicilian architecture, which is a very unusual combination. A split was already recommended in the header of the category. Besides there are a few articles in this category that are non-English and non-Sicilian which should be in the new parent. Note: these two proposals are of course entirely interrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this request. Sub-categories are regularly created by editors in just such situations all the time. Hmains (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support such diffusion. Agree with Hmains that this isn't really in need of discussion as it stands. SFB 16:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I commend the nominator for bringing up this discussion if he was in doubt over the merits of his proposal. For future reference, the template {{cfs}} is a better fit for a proposal to split a category. If almost all the member pages would belong in the new category, we can still use the bots to implement it (by an automated rename followed by manual re-creation). – FayenaticLondon 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is indeed the case that the large amount of member pages would belong in the new category, so an automated rename followed by manual re-creation is needed for practical purposes. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By my count there are only 6 articles for sub categories at this point. Most are in Ireland so they need manual intervention. If the decision is to rename the ones in North America to the Category:Neo-Norman architecture branch as suggested, I'll agree to just speedy rename the two affected categories under G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. With the exception of the creation of the Ireland subcategory (and maybe one other), the upmerge is just not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change -- The changes seem partly to have been made, in that an England category seems to have been created. I support ther creation of an Ireland sub-cat (which should be an all-Ireland one). For the rest, it should selectively be merged with Category:Romanesque architecture, being the term used for this style elsewhere. Architecture of Normandy would be better dealt with through a "redirects here" capnote, if we were delaing with an article; I am not sure what the equivalent is here, or even if we need one. I do not know enough of Norman Sicily to be able to comment on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegaswikian: Thanks for your support! I suppose this nomination as it stands can be closed now. It's okay with me if someone would create an Ireland sub-cat as well. For the relationship between Norman and Romanesque, which may indeed be a fair point, it's probably better to post a new CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let editors create appropriate subcategories.I've taken the liberty of creating one for Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2014 (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. Mlaffs (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact it would have to change the name to Category:iHeartMedia stations because it has only one TV station (WDFM-LP). If another company were the owner that station today, i would support the request. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mega-buses: There are more than 850 AM and FM radio stations in this category, all of which are owned by a company which operates primarily in radio. Shouldn't the solution be to move WDFM-LP to a parent category, such as Category:Clear Channel Communications (also in need of renaming) and/or Category:iHeartMedia, Inc., and not reword the whole category to accommodate a single article? Incidentally, WDFM-LP may not even exist this time next year, as it is a low-power analog TV station. Levdr1lp / talk 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename Per C2D. Nate•(chatter) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale I see no useful benefit of grouping people by such traits. Considering some people have tried to attack Wikipedia on the grounds that there are too many autistic (if in general high-funcitoning autistic) contributors, and considering that the category has a note it might open people to discrimination, I think deleting would be good. The marginalization of some people as adnormal with names like this should be avoided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a very different reason, namely WP:SMALLCAT. I'd keep it if a reasonable number of people would self-identify themselves as Neurodivergent, but that's apparently not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No valid encyclopedic reason exists to go specifically searching through this category to collaborate with these users - Even if there were tons of users in this category, it is not realistic to expect two people in this category to be able to collaborate on the same topic. Having this trait does not imply any particular interest, skill, or ability collaborate on any topic other than Neurodivergency itself, and even then that would violate WP:NOR if their edits are based on their personal experience. A better category would be something like "Wikipedians interested in neurodivergency." VegaDark (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2014 (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:Redirects from Artificial languages-language terms[edit]
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:administrative close: in use now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Makes no sense, never used. - TheChampionMan1234 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I created this category, I had J. R. R. Tolkien and the artificial languages he developed for his Middle-earth stories in mind. Tolkien is one of several authors who have created artificial languages, such as Quenya, and there are also the languages of the Star Wars and Star Trek universes as well as those created for other fictional worlds. I had begun to populate the category, but evidently those few have been removed. I have it on my to-do list to continue the categorization of redirects to this and the other subcategories of Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms. A look at that category will show many subcategories, the names of which are in a common and specific format similar to this one. That is so the {{R from alternative language}} redirect categorization (rcat) template will recognize and correctly categorize a redirect when the proper ISO 639 code is applied, such as {{ISO 639 name|art}}, which yields "Artificial languages", as well as many other language codes. The code for English is {{ISO 639 name|en}}, which yields "English". The R from alternate language template then categorizes such a redirect to Category:Redirects from English-language terms, so the format of these category names must be specific in order to work with the rcat. Therefore, this is a necessary category and its name is specifically formatted. I just need to spend some time sorting artificial-language redirects to it. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 09:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will take me some time to answer you. The ones I found before were noted while on a general task to find and categorize alternative-language redirects, both "from" and "to" artificial language terms, like Nazgûl, a Black Speech word, as well as several other languages. This is presently high on my priority list. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 10:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, please keep in mind that I only very seldom create redirects for these categories. That may be a job for down the road; however, for now it is an interesting and seemingly endless task just to find and tag already existing redirects. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 18:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for the reply. Generally speaking, we wait for there to be content before we create a category rather than creating a category just in case it is needed later. That approach ensures that categores can aid in navigation and not cause clutter. The Categorizatin FAQ provides a good overview for when to create categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! As I may have mentioned, I saw a need and I filled it. There were appropriate redirects that I used to populate this category, and I have no idea why they were removed. As I have shown, it would not take much time to place even more redirects into this category. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 16:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither applies here. Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.... If you will look at this category's parent, then you will see the "sub-categorization scheme" that is an exception noted by WP:SMALLCAT. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 16:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have placed {{Empty category}} on this category, because any new members should subsequently be placed in subcategories for their particular artificial language (if and when their languages get associated ISO 639 codes), such as Klingon, Quenya, etc. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 16:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I forgot to say why WP:C1 also does not apply, although editors can probably see why just by clicking the link. That reference applies to unpopulated categories, and while this category had been emptied by the time of this proposal, it is empty no longer; it now contains two members and three subcategories. I have found that some members may be difficult to send to subcategories, because it will sometimes be hard to pinpoint the exact language of the term. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:47, 26 September 2014 (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:merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION. This whole category tree only has 3 articles so it's a little premature to start breaking it down by nationality. No objection to recreating later if needed. (If approved, the now empty parent category should also be speedily deleted per WP:C1). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categories should not be broken down by nationality when there is little content to breakdown in the first place. SFB 16:18, 21 September 2014 (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.
