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:multiple merge. There is a consensus to merge to something. Merge (i) to Category:Years in architecture, because the contents of the nominated categories are each a single year-in-architecture article, and these clearly must stay within that category somehow. (ii) to century architecture categories. This will leave the decade categories e.g. Category:1700s architecture empty apart from religious building categories e.g. Category:Religious buildings completed in the 1700s. I considered merging these year articles into the decade architecture categories, but as there was no opposition expressed below to Vegaswikian's separating the year categories for buildings and architecture, it seems that the decade categories can go as well in due course. (iii) to the other parents, the Works categories by year e.g. Category:1700 works; even though no-one has mentioned them below, it seems to me that the pages belong in Works by year, so I propose to merge to those also. – FayenaticLondon 11:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Continuing on. Once the existing content about buildings is moved to that tree we are basically left with by year categories for the individual summary articles. This extra category level does not help navigation. So upmerge into the parent. It will take a while to list all of the content. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that these also need to be moved into the by century category. If there is consensus, then so be it. However I'll suggest that this nomination proceed and then manually add the second parent. Dual upmerges are backlogged for 6 months so approving a single here and then manually doing the work that is manual no matter how it is approved will move this forward sooner. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: bad faith nomination. Years in architecture is a meta category, useless except for holding the child categories. These categories are nearly empty, because the nominator's been removing the contents without reasonable explanation. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Providing background on earlier edits would have been helpful, but I don't see this rising anywhere near to the level of bad faith. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1701 and so on was the consensus for building articles, I assume that your link above is a typo. However these articles are not specifically about individual buildings so what is proposed is in my opinion correct. I had not considered upmerging these articles as you suggest and I'm not convinced that this would be right based on the article content. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt merge to the decade categories (e.g. Category:1880s architecture) which more usefully serve to group articles. The exact year is often of less relevance than broader periods as a whole. SFB 22:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 99% of the cases we only have 1 article per year. So this alternative would take take them in groups of ten and place them in different categories. How does this help navigation? They are all grouped with the proposal. Now if you want to propose adding a century category I said I could support that. The cost would be 2 extra categories rather then 20. That might offer some navigation benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support some kind of merge and I think almost everyone agrees on having some kind of merge. The two alternative merge nominations are convincingly countered by nominator. I think the best solution (alternative 3) would be to have it merged by century, which is also a reasonable compromise between the nomination and SFB's alternative. As a side note, a fair point was made by Peterkingiron that there is a certain relationship between the architecture categories and the buildings and structures categories, I suggest we accommodate for that by having a "see also" link in the headers of architecture categories and in the headers of buildings and structures categories so that the two categories (of the same era) mutually refer to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This nomination won't fix all of the overlapping categorization here but it is as step in the right direction from what we have now. I'm open to some possible alternative restructurings but no single other suggestion seems to be at the fore here. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 28 April 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:keep but divide contents into new sub-cats. – FayenaticLondon 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category is very ambiguously named. According to the description, it's a category for "minors (as defined within their jurisdictions) who have committed murder even if they were tried as adults", i.e. a set category. But set categories are in plural. The current title seems to indicate that it's a topic category about the topic of "murder committed by minors". But the description speaks against that. If the category's about individual crimes (a set category), then it should be in plural: Category:Murders committed by minors. The content is a mess of everything; murders, murderers, victims, crimes. The category may need to be split. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative to split per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split: We can't just rename per nom. That would mean the category should consist of only biographies, and not have any "Murder of so-and-so" articles. Since there are a lot of those as well as a lot of biographies, we should have two separate categories (e.g. Category:Minors convicted of murder and Category:Murders committed by minors). --NYKevin 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the category has to be split, I just didn't realize that there was such an option at the time I nominated the category for discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have tended to end off with articles "The murder of Joe Bloggs", rather than a bio-article on the murderer, so that the title is appropriate, and articles on the murderers are better here. After all, the murderers are generally only notable because thgey killed. I would support rename to Category:Murders committed by minors. However the headnote needs amendment. In UK, the juvenile courts are magistrates courts and too junior to try murder, so that (exceptionally) minor are tried in the crown court, in much the same manner as if they were adults. Accordingly, I think the "even if ..." bit of the headnote should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we can't possibly keep it as it is: the content is a hodge-podge of anything related to murder and minors. We might as well name it "Murder miscellany". No, we've got to try to create some kind of structure. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you find any articles in the category that are not within the topic then you can remove them from the category. If the remaining articles are within the topic then I don't see how describing it as a "hodge-podge" or "miscellany" is appropriate. DexDor(talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely. Useless - what is a minor? The age of majority differs from country to country. One alternative would be to set a specific age (e.g., 18). Neutralitytalk 05:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a problem that the age of majority differs from country to country? I guess this is more like a legal type of categorization, these murders are treated under juvenal law of a specific country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't always. Some countries do not have a separate system for juveniles. Other countries (such as the U.S.) sometimes try minors as adults. Neutralitytalk 18:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I don't see it as a big problem that the age of majority differs a bit per country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter. "Murder committed by minors" is a topic category. It could have subcats that are set categories (e.g. "Murders committed by a minor" and "Minors convicted of murder"). If such categories are created (which doesn't need a CFD discussion) and all the articles are moved down into them then it may be possible to delete this category as an unnecessary layer in the categorization scheme. DexDor(talk) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The age of majority differs with jurisdiction. This category implies a uniform notion, and even using local rules will create uneven application.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 18 June 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.
Small Bushehr Province geography stub categories[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.
Keep -- Whole some subcats of the parent are on the small side, some have over 100 articles. A complete upmerger would make rather too big a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise the parent will become oversized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the nominated categories - we generally delete such categories unless they have reached about 50 articles, which none of the nominated ones have. And adding just these would still keeep the parent category under 200, which is what fits on one page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UpmergeCategory:Asaluyeh County geography stubs and Category:Kangan County geography stubs; keep the other two. The two middle categories have 40+ articles and are fine to keep; then the upmerged category is 60+ and this is also ok. Having said this, the best way to resolve the issue is to work on these articles so that they become start-class.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 14 June 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:keep by default, the discussion is stale, and, as discussed, high-quality arguments are missing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There are a fair number of articles in subcategories of Category:Computer optimization. While some articles may need to be rearranged (e.g. Object code optimizer is currently in performance and also in a subcat of optimization), I'm not convinced merging is the best course of action. --NYKevin 23:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are other aspects to performance than just optimization. No reason to change things here. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a pretty vague discussion from both sides.
"Unnecessary", why is it unnecessary?
"Not convinced merging is the best course of action", why not?
"Other aspects", like which aspects?
For someone to close this discussion, better argumentation is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The person or group proposing a change is normally responsible for articulating a positive argument in favor of that change (cf. WP:BRD). In this case, they have failed to persuade me (because, as you observed, "unnecessary" is hardly a compelling argument by itself). That is what I meant by "not convinced." There is no need to call out specific arguments in this fashion. If people support merging (or deletion), they will make their points in due time. If not, the closer will have an easy time closing an all-keep CfD. --NYKevin 02:39, 16 May 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:Czech Republic Military personnel stubs[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:merge. MER-C 03:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Can use the demonym like other countries, and no need to capitalize military. Dawynn (talk) 02:39, 10 April 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.
