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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category and the target seems to follow the naming hierarchy within the tree. —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The target could in theory also include expatriates, but I doubt that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 9 August 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:Abandoned military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom[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 as nominated. (Though I wonder here if "abandoned" isn't better than "cancelled". All cancelled projects are abandoned, but not all abandoned projects were cancelled. If anyone wants to nominate for renaming the reverse way, it should be allowed.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between "abandoned" and "cancelled" military aircraft projects (on Wikipedia) is whether or not the project reached the flight testing stage of development. From this brief discussion, it seems that we invented that distinction here, and it does not serve readers. In most cases (other than these two) each country has either an "abandoned" or "cancelled" category, but not both. Since the categorization is redundant, I propose these be merged. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. I see no virtue to the distinction, I believe it makes navigation less clear for readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- preferably as nom. The alleged distinction is too fine a one to be useful. No strong objection to a reverse merge if others think that better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a distinction is useful and reasonable, but I won't stand in the way of a consensus. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:10, 26 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentancient is an amorphous quantity, and should not be used for category names, and can be used to exclude everything outside of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian area. We should use a more precise term, like pre-x-th-century-BC -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are very many "ancient" categories for the period from after end of prehistory to approximately 500 AD, so I assume a longstanding consensus exists about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 16 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this double nomination refers to the same article which is a lonely article in two categories. The proposal intends to put this article in two better-populated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentancient is an amorphous quantity, and should not be used for category names, and can be used to exclude everything outside of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian area. We should use a more precise term, like pre-x-th-century-BC -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are very many "ancient" categories for the period from after end of prehistory to approximately 500 AD, so I assume a longstanding consensus exists about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 21 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentancient is an amorphous quantity, and should not be used for category names, and can be used to exclude everything outside of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian area. We should use a more precise term, like pre-x-th-century-BC -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are very many "ancient" categories for the period from after end of prehistory to approximately 500 AD, so I assume a longstanding consensus exists about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 21 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in this category and - given the contents of Category:Tsunamis - there seems to be little growth potential. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentancient is an amorphous quantity, and should not be used for category names, and can be used to exclude everything outside of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian area. We should use a more precise term, like pre-x-th-century-BC -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are very many "ancient" categories for the period from after end of prehistory to approximately 500 AD, so I assume a longstanding consensus exists about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 21 August 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only user in category hasn't edited since 2009. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:19, 9 August 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: only after the bot had merged the contents, I realised that this was an invalid nomination as the category page had not been tagged. I am going to leave the merged articles in Buddy films, and redirect rather than delete the category page. – FayenaticLondon 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories don't seem to have any differences. Buddy films by definition are about friendship. Kkjj (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at first instance I was about to oppose, but after viewing the contents of the category in more detail I don't think it is coherent enough to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the usual problem of these "films about" categories; how much about the subject must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Something as broad as "friendship" would likely in subjective opinion - which is what we're operating under for these films about... cats - mean nearly every film every made with more than a few characters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article for this category is Slovenes, and the name of the parent category and its children should be consistent with the main article name, which has been stable since 2008. This is also the thrust of the existing naming convention for the use of Slovene/Slovenian. The current category name has significant potential to cause confusion for editors trying to categorise the large number of Slovene people from places other than Slovenia, including pre-WWII Yugoslavia, but also Italy, Hungary, Croatia and Austria, as it appears to be a category only for people from the nation-state of Slovenia, not Slovenes within the much wider scope of the main article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would suggest that Slovene is the correct name for the people, but Slovenian is the adjective for things relating to the country; "Slovenian cities", because the city is in the country, but its inhabitants will not necessarily all be Slovenes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a nationality category, not an ethnic one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what would you suggest, creation of an ethnic category of Slovene people? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, just don't mix things up by trying to morph a nationality category into an ethnic one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow you. This is the only people category in former Yugoslavia that doesn't have both a nationality and an ethnic people category, and it obviously confuses a lot of people. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds that this should remain a nationality category (one fifth are not Slovene) but support creation of an ethnic category if enough material warrants it. SFB 21:46, 11 August 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:University and college woman presidents[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:Rename. Sticking the singular form "woman" in the middle of the occupation that the women are doing is not how we gender a category. This needs to be renamed to either Category:Female university and college presidents or Category:Women university and college presidents — I'm not sure which one would be better, which is why I didn't just take this to a speedy CFR. Truth be told, I can also see the potential for a delete consensus on the grounds that gender has no inherent relationship to the topic, but that wasn't the argument I was prepared to formulate here. (Though I will say that I was correct in my prediction of who created the category; it's an editor who did previously get rapped on the nose at least once for seeming to believe that every occupational category that exists at all always had to have a separate gendered subcategory for the women in it, regardless of gender's definingness or lack thereof.) I leave it to others to decide if this should be deleted instead — but if kept, it must be renamed for failing to conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions for categories of this type. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually demonstrate any consensus to use the singular form — it was actually created by the same user responsible for the silliness under discussion here, and has to be listed for CFR too. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 21 August 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 to merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Double upmerge to grandparent - it is unlikely that this category will gather enough material to warrant navigation. The century level should be built first, then only if sufficient material warrants it the decade or year categories should be made. SFB 04:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should also be merged to UAE parent category. Tim! (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, also support upmerge to UAE parent category.
That's another solution that I would also support. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Establishments in the United Arab Emirates only and delete all Dubai establishment categories. Dubai is a city. We don't categorize establishments by city. Washington, D.C. is a district. No such categories exist for New York City, Tokyo, London, etc. There was a recent in fact for 2015 establishments in Richmond, Virginia....William 22:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging to UAE only, since Dubai is not just a city, it's an emirate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Emirate of Dubai is a distict place. This makes it part of a larger tree, so any contents justify this subdivision. Also I have to point out that this whole tree remains largely undeveloped. Until we are somewhat close to having all categories on things established in a year in a category by place, upmerging on size is rash.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge per Johnpacklambert. We may resolve this by simply parenting Dubai with UAE.GreyShark (dibra)
Oppose It seems to be a relatively significant subdivision to the UAE, it only needs maintenance. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I can't agree that "it is unlikely that this category will gather enough material to warrant navigation". There must have been lots of notable things established in Dubai in the 1990s - what is needed is more research, article expansion, and then adding to categories. StAnselm (talk) 02:03, 7 September 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:Establishments in Dubai by millennium[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 11:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Excessive dissections of the establishments category tree for Dubai given the small level of material. SFB 04:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in most cases millennium categories serve no useful purpose. Currently the whole tree has 2 1990s articles and 4 annual categories in the 2000s. The next nom about this deals with related issues, and I will comment further there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We clearly do not need millenium categories unless we can have at least 3. I am not even convinced then they are useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 15 August 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: It is unlikely that categories on specific years in Baghdad will gather a wide range of related material. This is better gathered at a higher level for the city - the 20th century tree contains seven categories, yet only four articles. It makes sense to build the century tree first then only narrow down if there is a large amount of disparate material that warrants separation. SFB 03:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also merge to Iraq parent. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 9 August 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.
