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:speedy delete G7 with the consent of the page creator. – FayenaticLondon 10:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Probably quick delete. Only one article. Seems WP:FRINGE and categorizes article based on failure to guide article contents or tag. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:G6, wrong namespace. Looks like the kernel of an article someone is writing, not a category, so I copied it to the creator's talk page.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not a category, a test edit of an article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 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. – FayenaticLondon 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These categories for the most part only contain 1 child category. That is the corresponding Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1107 and so on. In some cases, articles were recategorized into one of those categories since the article was about the physical building and not really architecture. All of those categories roll up into the architecture tree at Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 12th century and so on, so we do not lose membership in the architecture tree. I'll add that the buildings by year tree is better established and more complete. So do we really need two categories by year to convey this information? I don't see how that really helps navigation. As more cleanup is done, more of these categories will need to be nominated if this gains consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I've noticed before that (part of?) the tree by time period has become extraordinarily fragmented which doesn't help navigation at all, so every measure to improve this situation is welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't you list Category:Years in architecture and everything under that? There's maybe thirty actual articles in total there other than the buildings and structures subcategories for each year (and then decade and then century). The 12th century is odd here but it's not unique to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a starting point that I have checked to see what the contents are and that it is OK to delete based on the logic I'm using. Before I get to the nomination, I'm actually looking at the contents and re categorizing articles as needed. If we delete the categories before a review, then articles will likely drop out of some tree, either buildings or years. If you like, I could change priorities to make Category:Years in architecture a priority for cleanup and then nominate it? But that is 638 categories a huge nomination. If this closes with consensus, maybe the close could say that removing the buildings by year child category is OK even if the category is then empty. Then the deletions could be done as speedy deletes. There is one 10th century category I saw looking at Category:Years in architecture I'll check that one and add it to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in looking at some of this while cleaning up, Category:Years in architecture needs to be kept. Categories like Category:2000 architecture will need to be upmerged to keep the by year architecture articles correctly categorized there. Of course hat would need to happen after the buildings by year category is removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would suggest that years in architecture should be limited to the last few centuries, jusged by whether the category has a minimum of 5 members. If it does not, it should be upmerged to decade; and if that does not have 10 articles, it should be upmerged to the century. These annual cateogries are a menace. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is looking, for almost the entire tree the articles with year information are better placed in the buildings tree. As a result, what is left will be only the by decade articles and a few other stray articles. So all of this should be nominated for a merge to the century category. I believe that you can nominate the by decade and by year categories in Category:21st-century architecture for upmerge at this time for the reasons covered here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 22 March 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. MER-C 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Promotional. Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose The concern here seems to be that the main article, Phil DeFranco Networks & Merchandise, is a promotional advertisement and it's already tagged with that concern. Nominating that article for AfD seems like the best path forward here. (If that articles goes, then I would favor deleting this category.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Per outcome of CFD, that the main article is advertising and not notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 24 March 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. MER-C 05:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge. The current split between Cyprus and Northern Cyprus didn't exist in ancient times. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we categorise according to contemporary polities, which in this case should be the island. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 21 March 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge because most sibling categories within Category:Consonants include the word "consonants" in the name. – FayenaticLondon 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - From researching references, the term doesn't appear to be an adjective for "consonant". (The adjectival form would be "affricative", which isn't used for this.) We should avoid creating a neologism. - jc37 16:43, 30 March 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:Merged. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles per country, which are all related to the Hellenistic era. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to all parents – merging to just one, in cases like this, would damage the encyclopedia. – FayenaticLondon 10:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a Greek site is not necessarily an archaeological site. Some Greek sites' locations have been lost to time (as was Troy for a long time) and not subjected to an archaeologist's spade. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current category name is ambiguous though it is really intended as an archaeological site, as part of the tree of Category:Archaeological sites. If not merged, rename the three categories to Ancient Greek archaeological sites in fooland, per C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of the 7 articles in the tree, two are structures; the rest are cities. They should be categorises in Hellenistic cities (or colonies) tree as well as an archaeological sites one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 21 March 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename to the name of the region as used in the era of these colonies, instead of the anachronistic Georgia name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 15 March 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 per WP:SMALLCAT, the whole of Greek colonies in Bithynia (parent and two child categories) only contain 7 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- not enough contnet to be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 21 March 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:Environmental organizations based in Toronto[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:OCLOCATION. We don't have a comprehensive scheme of subcatting environmental organizations all the way down to individual city where they're located — in very nearly all cases, categorization by country (or very maybe the state/province level if necessary) is as far as we need to go. This might have been warranted on size grounds if Category:Organizations based in Toronto were significantly larger than it is, but the volume of articles involved (147 in the parent, three in here, for a whopping total of 150) is not large enough to need filtering like this. Entries should be upmerged back to Category:Organizations based in Toronto; parallel upmerge to Category:Environmental organizations based in Canada not needed since none of the three articles involved here were ever actually taken out of that category when this one was added (making this also a WP:DUPCAT violation in addition to all of the ways it falls afoul of WP:OCAT.) Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge as stated in the nomination (even though it says "delete", apparently in error). – FayenaticLondon 11:46, 19 March 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.
