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. The target category was also discussed but has not been tagged, so is kept for now without prejudice to any further nominations. – FayenaticLondon 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous comments about the limitations of categorising species by country when they are not affected by borders and widespread (with the exception of Category:Endemism, for obvious reasons). SFB 18:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Asparagales of Europe, which is quite as specific area as we need for biota. This conroms to a number of precedents, where biota have been merged on a continental basis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much less bothered about categories for large regions (e.g. Southwestern Europe) than about categories for political jurisdictions (which encourages some editors to create categories for very small areas - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_3 for some classic examples). Most of the previous CFDs of this type have been for fauna, but for flora there may be a stronger argument for categorizing at the level of region rather than continent. DexDor(talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you recognize that flora and fauna may have different categorization needs, but if your problem with political jurisdictions is that a few (mostly only one I can think of) editors create categories for very small areas, then may I suggest that's not a very good reason to upmerge them to larger regions? The same problem exists regardless of area covered. If you have no problem with regional categories whose boundaries are typically defined by the boundaries of its political subdivision, why not also recognize that the subdivisions are also reasonable? France is one of the larger country on the continent with varied habitats and plenty of flora and certainly deserves its own flora category. I don't think we need this "metropolitan" label, though, as the WGSRPD defines France as the continental territory only. Rkitko(talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have created categories for small areas (e.g. see[1][2]). France is (on a global scale) small([3]). If we categorize at the level of countries (such as France) then some articles could be in dozens of such categories and there will be pressure from some editors to create categories for their (favorite) country ("If France can have a Foos-of-country category then Spain deserves one - and if Spain then why not Portugal?..."). DexDor(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument only supports proper policing of a strict category hierarchy, and that we can do with the WGSRPD. This is not an argument to throw up our arms and announce that such a system can never work and therefore we shouldn't try. Rkitko(talk) 15:50, 9 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:Businesspeople in the healthcare Industry[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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The only entry is Chief executives in the healthcare Industry Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a category we can populate. There are many such people in the industry who are notable. The dodgy capitals need to change though. SFB 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to lowercase. I have started to populate it. – FayenaticLondon 19:00, 30 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.
Category:Chief executives in the healthcare Industry[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There don't appear to be any articles about healthcare chief execs other than those in the USA Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Navigation not warranted at this level at this time. SFB 18:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of articles about American Health CEOs, so that is a useful category. It could sit in Category:Chief executives by industry But the parent "Chief executives in the healthcare Industry" is redundant. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a better idea to merge the American subcat into Chief executives in the healthcare industry and only split this category if other nationalities pop in. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that, Marcocapelle, is that it would remove the members from the American hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 18:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that would be such a big disadvantage, since it mostly concerns global-operating companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter, they still belong within Category:American chief executives. We could upmerge to both categories, but why not just keep the existing structure? Other countries must have some notable healthcare CEOs. – FayenaticLondon 18:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try that first. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to lowercase. I have started to populate it. – FayenaticLondon 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative to keep and rename per Fayenatic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we can populate it. But the NHS CEOs are not exactly businesspeople.Rathfelder (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale no longer true. Brustopher (talk) 19:29, 21 July 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.
Merge/Reverse Merge These are clearly one category; no preference on what we call it. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Listed Historic Monuments in Romania. We certainly do not need both, sicne they appear to be identical. The article National Register of Historic Monuments in Romania states thjat the Roumanian is "Lista Monumentelor Istorice". I assume the literal transalation is something like "Listed Historic Monuments". In UK, by analogy, we have "listed buildings". "National Register" is a reflection of the American system and should not be applied where it is nothing like the local term. The main contents of both categories seem to the main articles, which probably need merging, unless someone can point to another heritage designation: in UK we also have scheduled ancient monuments. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also happy with this alternative name, after all the merge is more important than the exact name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Historic monuments in Romania. "Listed Historic Monuments" as suggested by Peterkingiron is incorrect - the Romanian word "Lista" means the register. It is only useful to have a national category within Category:Heritage registers where there is more than one register in a country. Here, all the sub-cats of Category:Monumente istorice are "Historic monuments in X County", so the national one should follow suit, in English language. The renamed category should stay within Category:Historic sites in Romania because that is part of Category:Historic sites by country. – FayenaticLondon 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, agree, fortunately you know a bit of Romanian language too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 29 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:Rename as discussed. Although the word delete was used, I presumed that was for a removal from the category not a deletion of the category. The suggestion to remove some inappropriate articles or to purge or whatever are not for CFD and should be taken care of at each article or on the category talk pages not here. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Upon further review, given that there was been no notice posted on any of the category pages nor notice to any of the page creators as discussed here, and with limited actual discussion on the issue of naming, this will instead be a procedural close with the nominator advised to re-list pursuant to all of the procedures at CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles found here are in almost all cases ultimately assigned to a particular language. They do not necessarily involve words and phrases common to the wider family at all (indeed, some of them treat loanwords). This seems relatively uncontroversial and I'd move these directly, but this involves quite a bit of work, it seems, so I'd like to ask for assistance and possible comments. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any that are not about the word, but about the concept or a proper name - why is Pasternak, a surname, in one of these categories? It's a word or phrase, or a surname? really cannot be both unless in essence all surnames are words and we can trim that whole tree because nearly every word is by now someone's surname whether notable or not (and as has been backed here before, surnames can be notable while no bearer is). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely Carlossuarez has a fair point in the sense that these categories need heavy purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning against a messy implementation of the above decision
[4] – Latin language and Latin languages are entirely different concepts. The latter should not be used as part of the category name, while that's not what the category is about.
Meanwhile AWB bots have gone around creating the mess of recategorizing many pages to inappropriately named categories... How can we invite those that caused the mess to clean up what was neither sanctioned by this CfD, nor a good thing to do in a broader understanding? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway for stepping in, and sorry for my inefficient attempt at partial reparation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. My mistake about that one - it appears that in fact it was me who created it in error, as I used the wrong name when I meant to revert your second move. – FayenaticLondon 15:04, 12 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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If not renamed as proposed it should at least be renamed to use lower case "i". Even the official website (which uses a lot more capitals than the style used in wp) says "Regional distribution of the Max Planck institutes and research institutions". DexDor(talk) 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Now There are dozens of articles in the category with "Max Planck" in their name. If this is incorrect, I would start with reaching a consensus to rename the article space and then speedy the category space later..RevelationDirect (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should be categorizing things by what they are, not by characteristics of their name. DexDor(talk) 20:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A potential main article is List of Max Planck Institutes. This is a case of shared institutional structure (provided by the Society), not the mere sharing of a name. That can be satisfactorily explained in a headnote. Personally, I favour short category names, though often these may strictly be not quitre accurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 27 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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge because the two categories have the same scope (since prehistory in Poland lasted quite a bit longer than in many other European countries). Possibly keep the addition "until 966" in order to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Reverse Merge Clearly one category; no opinion on what to call it. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the second proposal – So the region currently occupied by Poland has no historic records before 966? (!) SFB 18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poland didn't have any records of its own until long after 966, see Polish_literature#Middle_Ages but at least Poland became part of the 'civilized world' when it converted to Christianity in 966. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a proposal for a reverse merge. I'm not against that by all means. It just implies that Poland will be one of the few countries without a prehistory category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 21 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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (to be determined)[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:delete. MER-C 05:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this category has the warning "Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty!" but I disagree strongly with that statement. This category suggests that the scheduling of these holidays hasn't been filled out in the Infobox but in fact that's not true at all. The point is a certain scheduling has been filled out in the Infobox but, for articles in this category, their scheduling doesn't fit the preconditions of Template:Infobox holiday, for example because it's scheduled according to a non-Gregorian calendar or because it's a movable holiday that the template doesn't account for.
(In fact I would rather favor to remove all categorization rules from the template because it's not transparent and doesn't result in good maintenance. See also this yesterday's discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confusing, unnecessary, not-defining. Neutralitytalk 22:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Hatnote I'm willing to give WikiProjects wide latitude on what they put on talk pages but this is in the category space and doesn't serve a clear purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert into a maintenance category. Only maintenance categories (which do not sit under Category:Articles) should have a "Please do not delete this category even if it is empty!" notice. DexDor(talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a maintenance category, however nothing is being maintained and nothing needs to be maintained, per rationale of nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 29 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.
Category:Habsburg period in the history of Serbia[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 two Serbian categories need to be merged with each other for sure, they just cover the same topic. The target Category:History of Serbia during Habsburg administration - first specifying the main topic, then the subdivision - seems like a more usual form of category name than the nominated category.
- For the latter reason the Croatian and Hungarian siblings are nominated simultaneously.
- Finally, Category:Habsburg period in the history of Hungary should be merged to the corresponding Kingdom category since Hungary remained a kingdom (at least nominally) during the entire Habsburg administration so the two categories cover the same topic, they both cover the Habsburg period (1526-1918) within the Kingdom of Hungary period (1000-1946). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer - Category:Kingdom of Hungary during Habsburg rule. The Archduke of Austria was King of Hungary. I am less sure what to do with Croatia since part of it was part of Hungary and the rest a possession of Venice, but in principle, it should match. On the other hand, Serbia was something of a football, with two periods of Habsburg rule and long periods of Ottoman domination. "Modern Serbia" seems to start in 1804 (with a successful revolution). The previous major break is the collapse of Hungarian rule in 1526, at the battle of Mohacs. The subsequent period is covered in Ottoman Serbia. If covering the brief periods of Habsburg reconquest in an Ottoman Serbia is thought to be perverse, I would suggest that the category for 1526-1804 should be Category:Early modern Serbia. Having separate categories for short periods is unsatisfactory, unless they can be very well populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "rule" is a better word than "administration" in this context. (support alternative name)
For Serbia, probably the best is to keep the Ottoman category (matching C2C to other Ottoman categories) while the Habsburg category could be either a child category of the Ottoman category or a sibling. I'm not sure if you suggest deleting the Habsburg category in Serbia entirely, that wouldn't be my favorite option as there seems to be sufficient content to fill the both current Habsburg-Serbian categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support all, using "rule" Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with proposal of user Marcocapelle in the case of Hungary. "Hungary" (modern country) and "Kingdom of Hungary" (former country) are two different things. While former Kingdom of Hungary was an Habsburg land, there were also other Habsburg provinces outside of former Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary which covered territory of modern Hungary. Therefore, category with name "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary" is supposed to cover these topics. I explained this to user Marcocapelle, but because of some reason he decided to ignore my explanation. As for first category, name "Kingdom of Hungary during Habsburg administration" is also not the best choice because Kingdom of Hungary was actually an Habsburg crownland. We cannot mix former and modern countries like this. Croatia and Serbia are modern countries and these categories covering one period of history in their current state territories. However, "Kingdom of Hungary" is an former country and we cannot compare Kingdom of Hungary with Serbia or Croatia. We can compare only modern Hungary (without word "Kingdom") with Serbia or Croatia, Kingdom of Hungary is just one of former countries which existed in territory of modern Hungary, just like Roman or Ottoman Empire. Therefore, there are periods in the history of Hungary, but there are no periods in the history of the Kingdom of Hungary because Kingdom of Hungary is part of the history. However, as there are at least two important different periods in the existence of the Kingom of Hungary, categories which covering Kingdom of Hungary could be divided into "Kingdom of Hungary (medieval)" and "Kingdom of Hungary (Habsburg)" - as the second one was an actual Habsburg territory, not some modern geographical area "under Habsburg administration". Also, both of these categories should be subcategories of proper categories related to the history of Hungary. Redbluelighting (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It will never fit exactly and the fact that small parts of current Hungary didn't belong to the former kingdom of Hungary is imho not so crucial that the categories can't be merged. The borders of Hungary haven't been the same throughout history anyway.
On a side note, I disagree with the initial suggestion that kingdom of Hungary just existed as an Habsburg crownland, it actually existed since the year 1000 long before the Habsburgs emerged. Therefore Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary during Habsburg rule are definitely not synonyms. This is something that Redbluelighting later on recognizes, fortunately. In the end, I can't see a fundamental difference between Category:Kingdom of Hungary during Habsburg rule and his alternative "Kingdom of Hungary (Habsburg)". I would still prefer the former because that would probably be clearer to other editors but it's not a big issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say that categories "will never fit exactly"? How so? If we can to fit them exactly we should do it and in this case we can. No ofense, but your views about history of Central Europe are very simpliifistic and it looks to me that your views are not based on serious historical literature about this region, but rather on some dubious sources. As the Kingdom of Hungary is an sensitive topic, we should try to cover this subject as correct as possible, not only because of factual accuracy, but also because we should not start all kinds of political issues which might come with this topic. Periods when some Habsburg provinces were not part of Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary are very crucial for histories of some Central European countries, so inlusion of these provinces into category "Kingdom of Hungary" in Wikipedia is not just inaccurate, but might be also seen as political provocation by some people. Do you really think that Wikipedia should provoke people politically like this? If we just stick to historical facts everybody will be happy. Now about political status of the Kingdom of Hungary during the history: while there is a continuity of name "Kingdom of Hungary" from middle ages to modern period, there is no continuity of anything else. Medieval Kingdom of Hungary was an independent country with its real kings, institutions, army, etc. However, this country was destroyed in the 16th century by the Ottomans. After that, this country was divided into 3 parts: area ruled by Ottomans, area ruled by Habsburgs and Transylvanian state which kept some form of self-rule under Ottoman sizereinity. So, in area ruled by Habsburgs there was an political entity named "Kingdom of Hungary", but it was simple Habsburg province which only used name of previous independent kingdom, but which was different from that kingdom in all other aspects. It is not enough that one just see name "Kingdom of Hungary" used for two political entities to conclude that it is same political entity. One must also examine all aspects of existence of such entities. So, again: if we say "history of Hungary" we describe "history of geographical area of modern country of Hungary with its modern borders". When we say "Kingdom of Hungary" we describe an former country which had different borders from modern Hungary. My proposal about categories here is this one: Wikipedia should keep category with name "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary" which would cover Habsburg provinces which included parts of the territory of modern Hungary, but which were not part of Habsburg province with name "Kingdom of Hungary". We also should have another category for that Habsburg province and, by my opinion, name for that category could be "Kingdom of Hungary in the Habsburg Monarchy" (I think that this name could imply both: that Kingodom of Hungary was an Habsburg crownland and that there were other periods of the Kingdom of Hungary outside of the Habsburg Monarchy). Redbluelighting (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really wouldn't be in favor of two Habsburg categories, for both current Hungary and for former Kingdom of Hungary, per WP:OVERLAPCAT and ambiguity. The most obvious solution seems to only have an Habsburg category for the former Kingdom, while categorizing current Hungarian regions that weren't in the former Kingdom in the 'History of Hungary by location' category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not correct that two categories are overlap. We can make clear distinction between articles which can fit into one or another category. There is simply no valid reason not to have both categories. And this is not about "current Hungarian regions" but about "former Habsburg provinces" and thus categorizing such provinces under category "History of Hungary by location" is also factually wrong. These provinces can be accuratelly categorized only under "History of Hungary by period", in which case this period was Habsburg and in which case there is no word "Kingdom" before word "Hungary". Redbluelighting (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When writing "current Hungarian regions" I meant to say "historical regions partially or wholly within the boundaries of current Hungary that partially or wholly did not follow the history of the Kingdom of Hungary". I hope, by this longwieldy explanation, that you realize a category like that would be totally ununderstandable to other editors. (Btw I really do not understand why it would be wrong to have the history of these regions in History of Hungary by location). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron:@Johnbod: Since the two of you reacted in this discussion before, do you have an opinion about the later part of the discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Can we just use "Hungary"? I agree that we can not get exact matches in cases like this. I'm not clear what, if anything Redbluelighting proposes. One category is enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean, not clear, right? Redbluelighting proposes keep as is, so having two categories, one for Kingdom, and another one for historical regions formerly not in the Kingdom but nowadays (at least partially) part of Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, "historical regions" are current regions. If you read a definition of an "historical region" you will see that this is the case. Therefore, former provinces are not historical regions and they are not regions of modern Hungary. Category with name "History of Hungary by location" is obviously there for histories of current Hungarian regions like Baranya and Bačka. So, while some of these former provinces are already in category "History of Bačka" they are therefore already in category "History of Hungary by location". However, I think that historical articles should be categorized in two ways, by location and by period (since different Wikipedia readers might search for such articles in both ways) and there should be no exception for articles related to Habsburg period in the history of Hungary. Redbluelighting (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, it would be also incorrect to have category just with name "Hungary" in it. I give you two examples why: 1. Article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia speaks about former kingdom which was part of former Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, but which was fully located in territories of modern Croatia and Serbia and not in territory of modern Hungary. So, this article can be accurately categorized under category "Habsburg period in the Kingdom of Hungary" but not under category "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary". 2. the opposite example is Military Frontier which was separate land of the Habsburg Monarchy and thus it was not part of the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, but which (in one period of history) included parts of modern Hungary around city of Szeged. This article can be accurately categorized under category "Habsburg period in the history of Hungary" but not under category "Habsburg period in the Kingdom of Hungary". Therefore, two different categories for these two subjects are obviously needed. In opposite case, I do not see how we can have here only one category which can effectively solve all these problems and cover all these articles. Finally, why we should have this "shortage" of categories in Wikipedia anyway? I think that categories are not taking much of space from Wikipedia servers, so I see no reason for this kind of "space saving". Redbluelighting (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you still insist on "one category solution" then I would support proposal of user Johnbod that name of this category is simply "Hungary" (instead "Kingdom of Hungary"). Most of these articles and categories from Habsburg period are indeed rather related to territory of modern Hungary instead to former kingdom. In such case, articles like Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia which have not included parts of modern Hungary could fit into existing general category for the Kingdom of Hungary: [6] However, you must also note that there are two categories for medieval period as well and there are lot more articles which can be accurately categorized in only one of these categories: [7], [8]. So, this way of deletion of categories would really open an Pandora box here. Redbluelighting (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I stand by my previous comment. We should categorise historical subjects generally according to contemporary polities, not modern ones. Hungary is a country whose borders have fluctuated greatly, with the ebb and flow of Turkish conquest and Habsburg reconquest. Provinces that were for many years under Ottoman rule should probably not have a Hungary category. Whether we call the historic polity "Hungary" or "Kingdom of Hungary" is a matter of preference on which some of us may differ. There is some merit in keeping category names short, which would favour Hungary. If so, each category needs to be provided with a headnote explaining that it relates to the historic kingdom, not the (smaller) modern republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support such a headnote, though practically this merely confirms the general categorization guidelines, if e.g. an article is about Banat in the Habsburg period, as a separate Habsburg province, then Hungary is not a defining characteristic of that article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revise to better respect the system that was in place at the times involved. Many of the above arguments ignore that the structure of the Habsburg domains (which is generally also considered to include rule by the house of Habsburg-Lorraine) changed over time. At the start of the 19th-century there was the creation of the Austrian Empire, the transfer of Venice to Habsburg control, etc. From 1815-1867 the Austrian Empire was a unitary state. From 1867 until 1918 it was the dual monarchy. At that point the Kingdom of Hungary covered all presentday Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia and parts of modern day Serbia, Romania and Ukraine. Slovakia was not administratively recognized as seperate from Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't "ignore" that, they rightly think it would be madness (and not following how RS generally treat the period) to sub-categorize by each twist and turn, when "Habsburg rule" applies equally to all. What has Venice to do with Serbia? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 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.
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 11:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing templates by the year in which they were created is not how we normally do things in Wikipedia and does not appear to be particulary useful. This category places the templates under Category:Wikipedia maintenance which is incorrect. DexDor(talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: It never made sense to me to categorise by year. Jimp 15:32, 29 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.
Category:Singles certified by the Asociación Mexicana de Productores de Fonogramas y Videogramas[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:delete. MER-C 05:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly a NN award for singles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete as non-defining, plus probably can extend WP:OC#AWARD to this, although that mentions specifically performers, due to some songs receiving certifications from numerous countries. A large scale nomination or discussion of the schemes under Category:Certified singles and Category:Certified albums may be in order. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:29, 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.
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NetzentwuerfeMollweide.png){kind=link}