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: Category was apparently moved by a new user to align with their renaming of Microsoft Hardware to Microsoft Accessories, but the subject of the category (with a lowercase "h") is not about the corporate division. Dancter (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move the move itself was unprecedented and the user didn't include any sources as to why the page Microsoft Hardware was moved in the first place, I can understand Microsoft accessories as an article but the Microsoft hardware division already covered it, as for the accuracy of the title "accessories" is simply less inclusive and since no divisions with either name exist (both have never been formally used by Microsoft but "Microsoft hardware" is simply a collection of hardware produced by Microsoft which includes both the accessories and the "Microsoft Devices"), the renaming of "Microsoft hardware" to "Microsoft accessories" was done without consensus in the first place, and if one were to cite WP:BOLD the user in question not only reverts counter edits without any justification, the user also removes any sources and never adds one to any of the content they have created in relation to the articles relevant to this category and when I and other users have attended them on this behaviour and have reverted it Caballero1967 even identified it as WP:VANDALISM it gets reverted again, and the only justifications given until now have been that a non existing article "already exists", and that somehow always their version is the "Correct version", I would say that this move should be a speedy move as including full hardware series such as the Microsoft Surface series into the category or Nokia & Microsoft Lumia phones as mere "accessories" would give off an inconsistent rhetoric and might confuse readers (see: WP:READER).
I suspect that the user is the same one who recently made the extensive edits to the Microsoft engineering groups article while logged out. As for the category naming, it appears that they were trying to fix things on their own, but couldn't figure it out. I put in requests for a speedy merge. Dancter (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move Don't see why the category was renamed in the first place, the "Microsoft hardware" moniker fits perfectly. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 23:28, 21 December 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. No consensus to merge these categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So. Everything here is history. Hmains (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But historical regions (Courland and Livonia) is in this case much broader than former provinces=governorates (Governorate of Courland and Governorate of Livonia). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- The target is correct for the period after Russian conquest, but previously these were Sweden's Baltic provinces. I suspect that we need an article on Baltic provinces of Sweden. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 13 December 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category with 4 articles which overlaps with the destination category, and is not part of any general category of "traders". Hugo999 (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- 3 of the four articles certainly belong in the target. I suspect that the Chief Justice was in fact a sugar planter, not a merchant: he would have been growing and exporting sugar or other crops from the West Indies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - agree with Hugo and Peter. Neutralitytalk 07:08, 18 December 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:Pre-peerage earls or mormaers of Scotland[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: upmerge since the parent and child category seem to have the same purpose; Mormaers did not occur anywhere else but in Scotland. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the nominator's statement is correct; well, partially correct, the 12th century kings of Dublin are titled mormaers in Irish annals but not by modern historiography. Anyway, all mormaers might be Scottish, but not all pre-peerage earls of Scotland are Gaels. The earls of Douglas, for instance, were not Gaels; the earls of Orkney before Harald Maddadsson were not Gaels, neither were the earls of Orkney after the Strathearn dynasty. I did not create this category for no reason; mormaers do not account for all pre-peerage earls/mormaers of Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand now, your intention is to distinct Gaelic mormaers from non-Gaelic pre-peerage earls, however that's currently not evident at all. I'm happy to go along with you, but then we need (1) to reverse the parent-child relationship between the two categories, (2) to rename the nominated category to Category:Pre-peerage earls and mormaers of Scotland to avoid the suggestion that the terms are synonyms and (3) to populate the both categories accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Intention was a little bit different, but I don't have any problems with these plans. I understand why you want 'and' rather than 'or', but fyi the wording was chosen because the distinction isn't linguistic but cultural: mormaer is the medieval Gaelic name for the Scottish office rendered in the later Middle Ages at least in English as 'earl' or 'cunte' in French, so by analogy technically the earl of Arundel is a mormaer but only the core Scottish mormaers/earls in existence before 1200 are going to be called mormaers today for obvious reasons. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented (1) and (3) while leaving (2) to the closer of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 22 December 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) 19:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cannot have a category based on a neoligistic "cide" . All kinds of problems, from sourcing to POV/OR. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep no reason to delete. Category has a main article Eliticide that has reference citations dating back to 2008. Term dates back to 1992. Hmains (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. --Potočnik (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It may be a neologism, but it describes a phenomenon. The execution of the aristocracy in the French Revolution is another case of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 13 December 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) 19:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a person who doesn't have the content needed to warrant one — all there is here is BLP + albums category + songs category, which is not enough. As always, a person does not automatically get one of these just because she exists; there has to be a navigational need for it by virtue of a large volume of spinoff content that falls outside the standard albums/songs category scheme. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. The subcategories are interlinked and there is no need for an eponymous parent cat. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, she doesn't need her own category. CatcherStormtalk 10:22, 20 December 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.
