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 12:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per long (and acrimonious) discussion at Category talk:Dukes of Bulgaria. The title of "duke" was never used by a Bulgarian ethnic state, the sole category contained herein are the dukes of the short-lived Crusader Duchy of Philippopolis in the early 13th century. The only relation with Bulgaria of this state is that a) Philippopolis was on-and-off conquered by the Bulgarians in the period and b) the city (modern Plovdiv) is part of the modern Bulgarian state. Retroactively applying modern borders 800 years in the past and combining a medieval feudal title with a modern nation-state without any link or continuity between them is as ahistorical and unscientific as it can get. Constantine ✍ 21:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added also Category:Dukes of Greece due to much the same reasons; the only instance of a Greek "duke" in its Western sense is the use of the title Duke of Sparta by the modern Greek monarchy, and this scarcely requires an entire category for itself. The other two categories contained therein at this moment are Crusader states, the one (Athens) held by a succession of Burgundian Frenchmen, Catalans, and Italians, and the other (Archipelago) by Italians and an Ottoman Jew. Certainly these ducal titles are neither "Greek noble titles" nor dukes of the Greek nation, as implied by the parent categories. Constantine ✍ 21:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete. Reaction on the earlier discussion: I understand "duke of foo" to be a head of the foo duchy, not a duke of a fooian nationality or ethnicity. (In the latter case one would rather expect "from" instead of "of".) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete. For the obvious reasons summarized by Cplakidas.--Phso2 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole subject is fully covered in Category:Dukes of the Crusader states, which is an adequate parent for everything but Duke of Sparta, a title created for a member of the Greek royal house. That is better left in a category of the royal family there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of these categories engage is ahistorical anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:25, 21 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.
Establishments in what was not then Colombia[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 Out of various discussion a consensus has emerged that we should reflect the contemporary reality in these categories, both according to borders and according to name. I am not too vested in the Republic of New Granada vs. New Granada debate, but the later is more specific. If we choose the shorter name, we should rename the one existing sub-cat in Category:Establishments in the Republic of New Granada by year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, though would prefer the shorter name (without "Republic of") - in combination with the years there aren't any disambiguation issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two were different though, each in a different way. Ceylon is used as the common name of many different polities with relatively unknown names. German Empire was rejected because it is regarded synonymous to Germany. Neither of the two situations applies to New Granada. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as probably unnecessary. "Gran Colombia" existed until 1830, and in the English-speaking world I believe the most common name for these countries remained "Colombia" throughout the 1800s. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at my fingertips, but I can dig some up if this discussion remains open. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources I have, "Colombia" is in common usage between 1831 and 1863, but as I look at them carefully some of the sources clarify that "Colombia" is a broad term that is used to refer to a region of north-west South America and comprises Ecuador, Venezuela, and New Granada. So they seem to be using the term in the same sense as "Gran (or Greater) Colombia". So if the intent is to limit these categories to what is today Colombia, I can conclude that I have no strong objection to these renames, as "Colombia" in this context is probably better regarded as name for a region. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:09, 4 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. the UK Border Agency has been "replaced" with UK Visas and Immigration but this is only the most recent in a significant sequence of comparable organisational changes. Associated pages could do with comparable moves. Thanks. GregKaye 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more generic - e.g. Category:United Kingdom border control so that this doesn't need to be renamed every time the gov rearranges things. 06:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Not seeing some other Unser family that this needs distinguishing from. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 17 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category of dubious merit. "British people of Israeli descent", "British emigrants to Israel" and vice versa, etc is in my opinion enough. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Laura Janner-Klausner would better fit in a specific cat: "people with british and Israeli citizenship" but this would also th over categorisation. There is a Cat for British Jews. GregKaye 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First of all -- the comment "there is a Cat for British Jews", the basis for the above support, shows a frightening misunderstanding. Jews and Israelis are two distinct categories and concepts. Not every Jew is an Israeli. And a large number of Israelis are not Jews. Muslims are 16% of Israelis, Christians are 2%, and Druze are 1.5%. Seriously -- are we having this conversation?
Oppose Deletion. as noticed, normal sort of category. The merge is obviously impossible. In general I support most ethnic group categories where there's a possible definition,but it's fair to say that I have often supported a much wider use of them than is current practice here. Ethnicity (and nationality) are important defiing characteristics of people. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG -- thanks. Your rationale, if I am reading it correctly, indicates that your view is "Oppose (deletion)". But you wrote "Support" before your rationale. Would I be correct in understanding that you oppose the nomination, and that your use of "support" was not meant to indicate support of the deletion proposal? Let us know if my understanding is incorrect. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category description is at variance with the meaning of the category name. It is supposed to be for dual citizens only, which is not described in the category name itself, being much broader per the nom. If it is to be restricted to dual citizens, it needs a much more precise name. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Israeli people of British descent. This is the normal format adopted for cases such as this. I also do not think we allow dual nationality categories, but it may be necessary to purge out a few people who do not fit the new name. I dounbt there are many naturalised emigrants in the opposite direction. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is defining for the individuals included here, and we do categorize by citizenship. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rationale of nominator, of Johnpacklambert and Peterkingiron. I believe that the correct action should be to merge to Category:Israeli people of British descent (Peterkingiron mentions rename, but the target already exists). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 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. MER-C 12:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Some other categories are named "culture" instead of "civilization", they should perhaps be renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 25 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:keep/do not merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two article in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SMALLCAT is for categories that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." These were literally all just created a few days ago. These are large areas of land that have significant history, categories that were just created, are part of a larger overall accepted categorization scheme, and there is a potential for growth in all these categories which are just underpopulated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having checked the date of creation. Yet this concerns very ancient history about which there is not much content available anyway, not even on a global level. In that perspective the scope of these categories is so narrow (one century, one country, establishments only) that we cannot reasonably expect these categories to grow a lot. Maybe, just maybe, with the exception of Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To get an idea, look at something like Template:Maya sites to just see a list of Mayan sites which is only one group of a small region of Mexico and Central Mexico. Most of those have only vague references to the general period and hard to pin-point. The problem is there are many small places (barely civilizations). Even considering the Mayan civilization articles, it's not clear whether to add in the current country articles (so that the history of country Foo is consistent and someone reading the article has some context) or not (and the countries split off into Maya civilizations). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to also classify in current country or not is an unsolved discussion at this moment, that wasn't the my reason for opposition. Although the entire list of Maya sites is impressive, the exact century of establishment is often unknown and at a quick glance it seems like there aren't a lot from before 1000 BC. For those two reasons I'd rather categorize these as Category:2nd-millennium BC establishments in the Maya civilization instead of per century. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SMALLCAT refers to "no potential for growth." The lack of detail comes from a lacking of source material, especially archaeological studies regarding each place, which is information that we lack at the moment not information that will never come and I hate that all the work spent organizing these into centuries and into their countries of origin by ignored in place of a mass of "2nd-millennium" (the Maya civilization covers half of that millennium) which we may end up diffusing later if all information is eventually determined. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not that information will ever come, that sounds like a WP:CRYSTAL type of argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion WP:CRYSTAL applies to whether we make an article, not on whether we have categories for a article. There is harm in having articles about things that may or may not be notable, for it takes away from the quality of the encycopedia ; there is no harm in almost-empty categories, especially when there is every likelihood that they will have contents. Archeology continues to develop. As Ritchie says, SMALLCAT does not apply either, because there is potential. A "quick glance" is not equivalent to the long term effort of many people writing articles in response to discoveries. Nor, I think, has the nom done ap roper search including printed sources to see if there is already known information for which articles can be written immediately. WP is in its inherent nature a growing project. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Egypt, which has history at that period, but it should be parented to a worldwide 15th-century category. My recollection is that the Maya civilisation is essentailly AD. Since there is no history for USA and Canada, I would suggest that the category should be a Central America one; and so on, preferably eliminating as many unnecessary layers as possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Maya civilization spans from Preclassic Era (starting in the 18th century BC, along with the Olmec, Zapotec and Teotihuacan) and that's just in Mesoamerica or central America. We don't not have a history for the US or Canada: there aren't distinctive nation states there (at least no one has created those categories headers) - see File:Hopewell Exchange Network HRoe 2010.jpg for the early ADs middle Woodland period. Things like Adena culture and everything at Template:Pre-Columbian_North_America are within the North America category and need expansion. For example, we could expand Category:Adena culture to include establishments/disestablishments for all the mounds and other discoveries established in the Adena culture. No one has created these categories because the articles are lacking significant historical detail and because no one has created them, after reviewing and organizing the entire structure, to be told that they aren't needed because no one has fleshed out these articles with the archaeological background is really frustrating. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 22 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:keep/do not merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two article in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SMALLCAT is for categories that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members..." These were literally all just created a few days ago. These are large areas of land that have significant history, categories that were just created, are part of a larger overall accepted categorization scheme, and there is a potential for growth in all these categories which are just underpopulated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having checked the date of creation. Yet this concerns very ancient history about which there is not much content available anyway, not even on a global level. In that perspective the scope of these categories is so narrow (one century, one country, establishments only) that we cannot reasonably expect these categories to grow a lot. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had Ancient Greece created yet. There's going to be some categories that are widely populated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few, yes, so I'm not going to nominate those few. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose deletion Archeology continues to develop. As Ritchie says, SMALLCAT does not apply either, because there is potential.We need to take into account the long term effort of many people writing articles in response to discoveries. Nor, I think, has the nom done a proper search including printed sources to see if there is already known information for which articles can be written immediately. WP is in its inherent nature a growing project. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose -- We should have a worldwide parent for each century. Mexico and Maya should be in a Central America subcat. I suspect there is room to populate a China category. Merging to millenia to going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a need to create categories for Central America as you'd probably need categories for Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and a host of other regions which would depopulate the main continent categories or be duplicative. When the area at issue spans multiple countries, the continent category seems sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that User:Peterkingiron means to merge the categories of Maya, Mexico and (probably) also Guatemala to Central America, assuming this is altogether one whole historical region, at least from our current point of view looking back at such ancient history. Such a merge would not cause duplication. If that is the intention, I'm willing to support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I intended. At that remote period, there are few areas of the world where we will get enough history to merit a split. In Africa (except Egypt) we will have nothing. We might possibly get something in a Minoan category for Eurpose, but that is all. I expect nothing at all for the Caribbean or North America (USA + Canada). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 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.
Oppose - After reading through the article and related pages, and also through the cat and related cats, I think what this needs is a split. Category:Deafness, as a subcat of Category:Hearing loss. There are several other types of hearing loss besides deafness, but deafness should have a category of its own per what I'm seeing. - jc37 03:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how would you propose to define the inclusion criteria for each of them? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Could you please check the above question. I'd better have pinged you earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article:
"Hearing loss, also known as hard of hearing, anacusis, or hearing impairment, is a partial or total inability to hear.".
"Deafness is typically used to refer to those with only little or no hearing."
So in other words. "hearing loss" is the broad grouping of any type of medical condition involving any amount of loss of hearing. While being deaf means not being able to hear.
Notice the usage: one or more conditions vs. one or more persons with only a subgroup of those conditions - people with little or no hearing. Note also all the subcats appear to use "deaf" not "hearing loss".
I wonder if we'll be discussing anything similar with blindness and vision loss (both of which are redirects). - jc37 02:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative to split per Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hearing loss isn't a term agreeable to all d/Deaf people but the term deafness has little objections. Maybe rename to "deafness and hard of hearing?"
I think this is a very similar thought as the thought behind the earlier alternative to split. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split per User:Jc37. The Deaf/deaf dichotomy is not relevant as this category is about the physical condition itself, not it's socio-linguistic ramifications. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 17 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:Burial sites of the House of Habsburg-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:delete. MER-C 12:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, after this [[1]] removal the category has become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as C1. Empty categories can be speedily deleted after four days; no CfD is necessary. Gparyani (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but in this case I did the removal myself, so then a C1 would count as an out-of-process deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just list it for CFD. It'll take four days and then an admin will make the decision and delete it. If someone objects to your edit that removes the article from the category, then it'll come back and not be empty. That'll be faster than here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, I'll do that next time. 02:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete as pointless as well as empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 20 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.
