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 unnecessary category layer to capture just two centuries (14th and 15th). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- not enough content to merit a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 29 November 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:upmerge C16/17 categories. The nomination gives inconsistent pairs of merge targets for double upmerging, so I will instead do a triple upmerge where needed:
Nominator's rationale: This will make Category:Merchants into subcategories by century non-diffused by nationality and put the English and Dutch subcategories into the existing category "Businesspeople" which is diffused by century and nationality. Categories by century exist for Category:English businesspeople and several other nationalities (American, British, Canadian, French, German, Italian, Nigerian, Scottish), but subcategories by century should be created for for Category:Dutch businesspeople up to the 21st century.
While there are categories for women by century, the equivalent categories for men by century generally contain only subcategories of men by ocupation for all-male occupations. However I doubt the need for some new 19th-century categories without subcategories which contain only articles about people eg Category:19th-century businessmen or Category:19th-century male military personnel. They will either be grossly incomplete (businesspeople and military personnel are largely male occupations) or if complete would be large and unwieldy. Hugo999 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support, merging the English categories and deleting the male categories seems obvious, but I'm a bit hesitant about the merge direction of the English category and about the rename of the Dutch. Reason for the hesitation: before the 19th century the term "businesspeople" is anachronistic. In earlier centuries businesspeople are called merchants or traders so we may also keep the name of the earlier-century categories as "merchant" and have them succeeded by the later-century "businesspeople" within the same tree. The parent category can still be called Category:Businesspeople by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: "Merchant" is a category of businessperson who buy and sell (retail?) items, but there are a number of 17th and 18th century (and earlier) businesspeople who are not merchants, eg bankers, bakers, printers & publishers, shipbuilders and industrialists. And people of the Industrial Revolution in England/Britain like Richard Griffiths (industrialist) (18c). Hence it seems simpler to have the post-medieval centuries from the 16th century by nationality as “businesspeople”. Some occupations used different terms initially (eg Alienist for psychiatrists and psychologists) but we categorise by the later name throughout. Hugo999 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate the merchants -- A merchant at that period was primarily a person carrying on international trade, possibly also a wholesaler in domestic trade. This was a distinct economic activity within business people in general. The businesspeople category is currently well-populated. We cannot delete that until the contents have been gone through and more appropriate categories supplied instead, in other words diffuse. Ultimately this and the military personnel should end up mainly as container categories. At that point we can consider whether they are serving a useful purpose. There is something odd about wanting to merge into a 16th century category and at the same time to delete a similar 19th century one. As an academic historian, I have never come across the term businessman in contemporary documents in a pre-19th century context. I do not study the 19th century much but suspect that businessman is largely a 20th century term. "Businesspeople" only arose from post-feminist inclusiveness. We should seek to move away from such modern anachronisms, not towards them. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose This nomination has two sets of totally unrelated categories, and the businessmen and male military personnel categories are different enough to make merge unwise, so I think we should just scrap this disparate nomination and consider the different categories individually.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely make sense to relist this discussion and split it as two different nominations or at least two different sections of one nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 6 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; merge the two articles into Category:Saint Lawrence River. The redirects do not have to be merged, because their targets are not incompatible with the category and are already categorized in that same category: see WP:CAT-R.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a topic that doesn't have the volume of content necessary to warrant one — of the five things in this category, three of them are just redirects to one of the other two, making this a pointless two-item WP:SMALLCAT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge move the actual articles in to Category:Saint Lawrence River, per 79.51.44.60. Since the redirects point to one of the articles, I don't see value in merging them. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I am neutral as to what we do with the redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 26 November 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.
