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.
Comment: "Clergy" is the word used in the category hierarchy by nationality. It would be possible to use a semi-automated tool to move the pages mentioned by Johnbod first, and then do the merge as nominated. – FayenaticLondon 07:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Category:Indian Christian clergy exists as a sub-cat of Category:Indian clergy, so there is no actual reason for the later to only have articles on Christians. There is a lot of unneccesary over-categorization going on here. I think we need to make a clear statements that for the purposes of Clergy categories, RES (religion, ethnicity, sex) categorization guidelines do not apply to religion. That is in religion categories we should not have to put someone both in a a Roman Catholic priests category and in a parent clergy category. Clergy should be able to be subdivided by religion without following non-diffusing rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what am I arguing? Clergy is Christian-specific and Cleric should be used as a more general category, rather than eliminating Clerics and putting all nonChristian religious leaders in a Clergy category. LizRead!Talk! 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article Clergy discusses the term in relationship with all main religions, not just Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 22 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.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge. Despite the fact that Varanasi is a Hindu holy city, it seems more like a triviality when a religious leader was born or lived in this city. No other Indian cities are categorized like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 1 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.
Category:British Honduran constitutes established in 1961[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: Renaming to reflect the name of the legislative body in 1961, as well as to fix a glaring typo uncorrected in the previous nomination. Oh No! It's Faustus37!it is what it is - speak at the tone 21:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I do apologize for the typo which it seems you caught if no one else did lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Speedy? as an obvious typo. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the typo correction but I wonder if the longer category name is really necessary. Is there any risk of ambiguity here? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for constituencies do normally specify the legislative body. – FayenaticLondon 07:04, 5 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is not particualrly significant whether it comes from Maney, Wiley, Elsevier, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I added the category as the German Wikipedia adds the same level of category below Medical Journals, and it would be valuable for people looking for these journals. It needs further sub-categories by publisher. It is not a good use of your time to get rid of this category. Try having a look at M19 motorway instead. This is 100% rubbish, and has been around for almost two whole years. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few publishers only publish medical journals. The majority of journals in the lone entry in the cat (Category:Nature Publishing Group academic journals) are not even medical journals and don't belong in this cat at all. Very few people would call NPG a "medical journal publisher". "Journals by publisher" and "journals by subject" are two independent category trees and there is no good reason to mingle them. What the German WP does is their business, the different language wikis are quite independent on how they do things. What the M19 is doing here escapes me completely. --Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete +1 Randykitty. By the way, the German Wikipedia doesn't use this kind of category in scientific journals.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:47, 9 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge one way or the other. At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 11 it was agreed to use "Sri Lanka" before the colonial eras began in 1505, and "Ceylon" for the British colonial period 1815–1948 and the Dominion of Ceylon period 1948–72. That leaves a long period of intermittent and partial colonial interests, for which the naming has yet to be decided. Johnpacklambert (talk·contribs) strongly objected to the first line of option 1 as a Speedy nomination, on the grounds that "At that time the place would have been known as Ceylon or Zeylan. It was under the control of Europeans who were clearly using these names." However, that does not appear to apply to the Kingdom of Kandy in 1804, for which we have an article on an establishment. – FayenaticLondon 10:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (except Kandy) -- The contemporary spelling was Ceylon. Kandy should probably be treated as a separate polity until 1815. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2Option 1 except Kandy: I think we should keep Sri Lanka as the main category for each year and then treat the Kingdom of Kandy as a subcategory within that category. The Kingdom of Kandy did exist within Sri Lanka at that time and I think it's better to keep whatever happened within that kingdom during that time period separate rather than merge into the whole island. Basically, if things happened in the Kingdom of Kandy, keep it there as a subcat of Sri Lanka; if they happened in (British) Ceylon (this is for post-1815), keep it there as a subcat of Sri Lanka; if it's unclear or covers both or whatever, put it within Sri Lanka. We should probably break out and separate Kingdom of Kandy from the general Sri Lanka categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks for the link. You wrote "it was the end of a rebellion, not the end of a state" but it was also the end of the chieftancy, which is the subject of the article, so I think the category was valid. – FayenaticLondon 06:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few periods we have to consider separately ...pre 1815: Pre colonial era*, 1815–1948: British Ceylon, 1948–72: Dominion of Ceylon. (*During the Portuguese and Dutch Ceylon periods most of Sri Lanka was still independent with these Europeans only occupying a small percentage of the country at the time. It was only during British Ceylon that Sri Lanka lost its independence. Therefore I suggest:
1815–1948 years be named British Ceylon while keeping Sri Lanka as the main category, and
1948–72 years should be named Sri Lanka, but rather Ceylon. The Dominion of Ceylon and British Ceylon were two different entities, basically one is a colony and the other an independent state. The dominion and Sri Lanka are essentially the same while there is more of a difference between the Dominion and British Ceylon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although expressed as a comment, this appears to be a !vote for option 1 in this CfD, as it is about the 1800s which were not covered by the June 11 CFDs. (The argument for using "British Ceylon" post-1815 was already rejected there.) – FayenaticLondon 18:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Ceylon (option 2) - as Sri Lanka didn't exist at the time. We may however consider to retain Kandy separately per Peterkingiron.GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in the choice between Ceylon and Sri Lanka but support suggestion of Fayenatic London to upmerge Category:1804 in the Kingdom of Kandy to its parents per WP:SMALLCAT and because no other similar categories exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 seems to jive best with the close of June 11, and I support it. If users don't want to change the Kingdom of Kandy one (or upmerge it), that's OK. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 11 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.
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.
Ok, an improvement, but really this whole useless "national prehistories" tree should be merged to "Archaeology of ...", which they aren't even linked to yet. Neanderthal is in the category for every country in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think a little investigation would dispose of that idea. We have an awful lot of archeological articles, but their editors are generally remarkably unready to integrate them by categories outside the archeological tree. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm neutral about the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 17 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.
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Hellenic Wikipedia[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. MER-C 12:09, 30 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 18:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is for the same reason as the other one, to create agreed upon names and to avoid confusion with the home islands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- appropriate rationalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We actually have an article Japanese colonial empire, and the attempt to make these categories out of line with all the similar categories we have under Category:Establishments in the Japanese colonial empire by year makes no sense. The people above also ignore that colony and colonial empire have different scopes of meaning. Many units within colonial empires were actually protectorates and other things. A portion of what the Japanese held was a league of nations mandate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 18:18, 1 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.
