Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29[edit]

Medieval Transylvania[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: Split as proposed; if the people category ever becomes overflown, we can always split it further down--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split since quite a number of the articles in these categories are biographies. After keeping apart the biographies, too little content remains to justify a split between the two time periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Are there any other [[:Category:Medieval <region/country> people]] categories? I even looked and I'm not seeing a Romania (or Hungary) subcat of Category:People by region for this to go into, even without the Medieval descriptor. - jc37 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, I'm leaning towards keeping these and deleting Category:Medieval Transylvania. Everything in it is already subcatted. - jc37 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A separate tree by region is not necessary because Romania has only three major historical regions (Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania) and Hungary doesn't have any historical regions of major importance. In Romania it seems difficult to build a consistent tree because locality and ethnicity are confounding: Category:People from Moldavia and Category:People from Wallachia are both in Category:Romanian people as "locality equals ethnicity" categories, but Category:People from Transylvania is not in there, instead Category:Transylvanian Romanians is parented to Category:Romanian people while it is not even parented to Category:People from Transylvania! Nevertheless it should be relatively easy to build categories for medieval people of Hungary, Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania, if only because they had their own medieval rulers. Besides "medieval" is highly discriminating in these countries as Middle Ages ended with the occupation by the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I created Category:People by region in Romania, and added all 3 as subcats. I think Category:Transylvanian Romanians needs to be re-assessed as to how and where it is subcatted (as you said, ethnicity? locality?). As for the nom, because Transylvania has been part of different countries/kingdoms, I'm not sure the nommed plan is the way to go. I am loathe to start a "medieval people" tree of cats. And I am also not thrilled with "dumping" the two nommed cats into the medieval one. All of these things come together pointing out that this region is one of those "special cases". - jc37 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:Medieval people - It looks like it already exists. Sigh. Ok, so after going over this, and also in relation to the several other cats nominated, I think medieval people (and maybe medieval events) should in general be split between early, high, and late middle ages. This will help navigation for readers (and spare them the headache I got in trying to sift through this all), and may help solve the problems of the Norwegian and Scotland cats too. Then have a medieval location cat as parent. So in this case, renaming to: Category:Transylvanian people of the High Middle Ages, and Category:Transylvanian people of the Late Middle Ages, respectively. And merge the non-people pages to Category:Medieval Transylvania. Then we can take a look at a few group noms and/or just general cleanup for everything under Category:Middle Ages. auuuuugggghhh - there, I'm better now : ) - jc37 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey you're moving very fast now :-) I would consider if there is a vast amount of medieval people in a country that they should be split by century (as already happens a lot!) so there's no split needed in early high and late middle ages, while if the amount of medieval people in a country is pretty small (as e.g. in Transylvania) then I would just leave them at medieval without further diffusion in early high and late middle ages. In both these cases the distinction of early high and late is not too meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, Early Modern is a longer period than Late Medieval while it contains a lot more articles per century, so enforcing a Late Medieval distinction everywhere would lead to a pretty skewed distribution of category sizes. On another side note, content wise there is not an amazing difference between the political history of High and Late Middle Ages (there is a difference in social history but there aren't too many articles about medieval social history anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Split per nom. Too many categories under the current system, but we should split out the bio articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support JPL -- By convention we categorise according to contemporary polities, not their modern successors. Romania was a 19th century invention, because both Wallachia and Moldovia chose the same king. Transylvania was added after WWI at the expense of Hungary. We should have categories for the three constituent part of the country. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 31 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.

20th-century & 21st-century rulers of Portugal[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: Rename to Category:20th-century Portuguese politicians and Category:21st-century Portuguese politicians. delldot ∇. 04:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:21st-century rulers of Portugal to Category:21st-century Portuguese politicians
Nominator's rationale: Most of the 20th-century articles are about politicians, and the 20th & 21st century articles about presidents or prime ministers of Portugal are already in categories for those positions, eg Category:Presidents of Portugal. Hugo999 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I am the creator of these categories and I agree to the change in scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 30 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.

Template:UnitedStates-volleyball-bio-stub[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. This wasn't really the correct forum since it was a template that was nominated and not a category (and there was no corresponding category—it had been previously deleted), but the template has been redirected, so that eliminates the duplication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This stub template is redundant to Template:US-volleyball-bio-stub MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Template:UnitedStates-volleyball-bio-stub is redundant, I made a redirect to Template:US-volleyball-bio-stub. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 18:17, 5 January 2016 (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:Ottoman collaborators with Nazi Germany[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. delldot ∇. 05:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic. Nothing that could reasonably be called Nazi Germany existed until 10 years after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This category contains no pages directly and two subcats. The subcats are both already in Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality, so no upmerging is necessary. BDD (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one was collaborating with Nazi Germany while a subject of the Ottoman Empire. That some people who did the former had been the later does not make it a worthwhile overlap to categorize by. Considering Egypt was de facto seperate from the Ottoman Empire from the early 19th-century, most Egyptians collaborating with the Nazis would never have been de facto subjects of the Ottoman Empire.05:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete -- When there were Nazis, there was no longer an Ottoman Empire, so that the whole concept is an anachronism. Turkey was an independent republic from c.1922. I forget the precise status of Egypt, but it was not Ottoman. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 31 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:Causasian collaborators with Nazi Germany[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: Upmerge to Category:Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany. delldot ∇. 05:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I had never heard of "Causasian", but apparently it's a synonym of "Caucasian". But since there isn't a primary topic for Caucasian, I don't think it's wise to maintain this category at all; it currently only has one member. I recommend upmerging the one member to Category:Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany, or perhaps side-merging (?) it to Category:Russian collaborators with Nazi Germany. BDD (talk) 19:46, 29 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:Snake games[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: rename to Category:Snake video games. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with CfD's need for extra clarity, I think the proposed title communicates that this category has nothing to do with actual snakes, and that it's only for video games. BDD (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I was thinking of Roguelike, but obviously that's a well-established term. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 30 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:Atomik Harmonik[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. delldot ∇. 05:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After dividing up the contents of this category into "Albums by artist" and "Songs by artist" subcategories, there is no need for the eponymous parent category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no objection to recreating if 5 or so directly related articles appear. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:42, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_29&oldid=1138408420"