Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2[edit]

Category:Footballers from Barcelona[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: keep. This does break from past consensus, but there are some concerns unique to this discussion that there are enough footballers in this category that it's worth keeping. WilliamJE noted that some of these footballers may be miscategorized. If that issue is fixed and it substantially changes the number of footballers in this category, a renomination would be worthwhile. As a side note, it might be a good idea to have a more broad discussion on when (if ever) sportspeople should be categorized as "Sport from city" to reconcile the different outcomes in this discussion and past discussions. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4] here[5], and here[6] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Fooville by the type of athletes they are. Note- The entries all look to be categorized as Catalan footballers. Which makes them overcategorized because Footballers from Catalan is the parent of this category. If this category is kept, the FBers from Catalan will have to be empty of those articles that are overcategorized. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say keep due to the significance and political aspects of Barcelona as well as the fact that the category is so populated that merging it would make the Sportspeople category overpopulated and difficult to find individual articles in. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Barcelona is the biggest city in Catalonia, but only part of that province. It is entirely appropriate to have city categories if they can be populated with (say) five articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) While we have a WP:SMALLCAT guideline, we don't have a WP:BIGCAT guideline and this discussion would benefit from the latter. The purpose of categorization is to facilitate easy navigation from one article to other articles that are as closely related to that first article as possible. While too few articles in the category is not practical to suit that purpose, too many articles isn't practical either because there's no way someone is going to check as many as 500 articles (and checking a random subset is highly unsatisfactory). (2) On the other hand, I'm not sure that categorizing footballers by city would create categories with even more closely related articles, in comparison to footballers by province or state. After all, what do two random footballers from Barcelona have more in common than a random footballer from Barcelona and one from Girona? Nothing, right? In other words, geography is a rather trivial issue here and the ultimate question is (to which I don't have an answer), can we divide footballers further by a characteristic that is not derived from geography, but instead divide them by a characteristic that is derived from football itself? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 10 April 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.

Sex trafficking (re-direct)[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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless this category is specifically to contain articles about illegally transporting animals for Bestiality, I suggest it is redundant of Category:Human trafficking and should be deleted or re-directed there. An additional possibility is Category:Sex industry Meclee (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Category:Sex trafficking is a subcategory and type of Human trafficking. Slavery is also. Not all human trafficking is about sex; certainly slavery is not (necessarily) about sex. The distinction seems clear enough as it is. giso6150 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — as creator and per Giso6150. Stefanomione (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this clearly a subcategory, not a duplicate category, of the proposed target. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Trafficking women for prostitution is only one aspect of human trafficking, which includes people enslaved so that they can undertake labour. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 9 April 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:Music by country or nationality[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: closed. Merger as proposed was done a full month ago now, so I'm not understanding why this was even still open. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A rare case of a few categories that are correctly categorized by Country, which isolates them from the rest of tree, which are correctly categorized by nationality. The precedent for this can be seen in Arts genres by country or nationality. Combining just these two very high level categories would eliminate the isolation and clear up a lot of confusion for anyone who wants to use the categories for navigation or who is trying to find the correct category for an existing article. giso6150 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Marcocapelle, for this perfect example to support my point. Renaming Category:French music as you suggest would mean that under the new category Category:Music of France, there would still be the articles French popular music, French electronic music, 2016 in French music, etc. Do we rename those articles 2016 in Music of France? There will always be a mix of Music pages named for the country and named for the nationality, unless we cleave apart 200+ "Nationalitish Music" categories and try to police and maintain that distinction. I believe that solution would be more confusing that what we have now. Combining country and nationality in a special case like this would solve for both the ambiguity of the English language and the relative unimportance of whether something is "Music from a specific country" or "Music related to a specific nationality". Examples abound of nationalities with no country, of course (Breton, Basque, Igbo, Cantonese), but for the majority of country/nationality pairs, the distinction is confusing and unnecessary. The non-country nationalities issue is separate to whether we can create Category:Music by country or nationality now. giso6150 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was  Done a while ago. Discussion can be closed. giso6150 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 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.

Creeks[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. No prejudice against separate renaming proposals to move the targets to a "Rivers and streams" format, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Rationale: I see no reason to have separate creek categories fro these specific places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:50, 2 April 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:Songs about rain[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: speedy delete WP:CSD#G4. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_rain, deleted after I made a list from the category last time. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category already deleted by discussion here. Same reasoning as before, members are included because of the word "rain" is included in the title. Richhoncho (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also, that previous Cfd was just two years ago. Is a recreated category not speediable? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal:, I thought so too, but couldn't find anything. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:28, 2 April 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:Deaths in Northumberland[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 12:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating-

Nominator's rationale: Is the location somebody died, a defining characteristic? Besides dying at home, People can die while traveling or at a hospital in a place they have no other connection to. To me, that makes the location of somebody's defining non-defining and something we shouldn't categorize by. Note we don't categorize people as from Foo only because the only connection the person had to Foo was that they died there. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm 99% sure there was a previous CfD to delete place of death categories, but I can't locate it (for now). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Why does CFD not appear in Google searches?RevelationDirect (talk) 16:55, 2 April 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:Criticism of the Bible[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: keep. There was some concern over what currently populates these categories. If editors check the existing articles in both categories for proper categorization and something changes significantly, a renomination may be appropriate. As it stands, specific examples weren't pointed to, and those supporting "keep" weren't convinced. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of the both categories seems not different enough to keep them apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Biblical criticism is the scholarly "study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning judgments about these writings". Criticism of the Bible is about criticisms of the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance. Editor2020, Talk 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per Editor2020’s arguments. giso6150 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Editor2020 and Giso6150: I realized this when nominating, by not writing "the two categories apparently have the same scope". Yet while looking at the content of the categories the difference does not seem maintainable. Or would you say that the current content nicely reflects the difference as you had in mind? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction the two keep votes and the main articles are trying to make in theory. Beyond the similar names, many scholarly discussions of the ethics of the Bible presuppose the Bible is partly ahistorical and many people who reject the Bible do so by analyzing claimed inconsistencies, so the approaches often overlap at the article level. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I would be fine with this alternative as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably should have two categories. One accepting the veracity of the Bible (New Testament and Old should be separated. I, for one, "accept" the Tanakh but not the New Testament) and one that does not.Sahansdal (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the comment above was moved here from the April 7 page. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The subject is probably largely about people who want to rubbish the Bible. The target is an academic discipline concerned with considering its content and how it was constructed. These are completely different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Biblical criticism is the field for scholars and pseudo-scholars who study the Bible as a document and apply various forms of "criticism" to it: textual criticism, source criticism, etc. It has been a scholarly field since the 17th century, when Richard Simon largely introduced the modern methods. Criticism of the Bible applies to arguments from scholars, pseudo-scholars, and laymen about the Bible's problematic ethics, its lack of consistency, its contradiction of science and archaeology, and its often ridiculous prophecies. As an example of easily disproved Biblical prophecy: "Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace". But Josiah was famously killed in the Battle of Megiddo (609 BC). Both are valid fields, but do not necessarily overlap. Dimadick (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both these are distinct subjects, one focused on a position taken, the other on methodology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 7 May 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:World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom[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: merge as in nom. As noted by Marcocapelle, renaming can (and should) be handled as a separate issue to keep things from being too muddy here. Please ping all participants of this discussion (not including myself) if you start a renaming discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories, there is only one subcategory in it, so it's an unnecessary layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Long Kesh isn't WWII. Also what about WWI prisoner of war camps, or even the Napoleonic prisoners and Norman Cross?
Also if there were only WWII camps, then a single category would be better named as World War II internment camps in the United Kingdom. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are camps that are both WWII and non-WWII. I can understand a merge if one of these categories was empty and merely contained the other category, but we have enough here to justify the two levels of categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PoW camps are currently categorized under internment camps, so changing that (should you wish) is a bigger issue than WWII UK alone.
If you want to claim that Long Kesh was a PoW camp rather than an internment camp then you'll find some support from the fringes of one side, but it was very definitely not just a prison alone. Most of those in there were interned, not convicted. I wouldn't claim than HMP Maze was an internment camp (by 1976 it had become a prison), but even then there's the politically charged question of Special Category Status and who it applied to. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, and if you know some other examples to populate the category, please go ahead. By the time the discussion closes the closing admin will judge whether the category is well-populated enough to keep it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now I have no objection adding section redirects to categories. However, I don't count that toward my arbitrary limit of 5 articles for WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later when those links aren't in italics. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the goal here SMALLCAT, consistency or accuracy? There is regular opportunity for back-and-forth edit warring hereabouts where some editors want to see an enforced consistency across category structure (thus lots of identically-named categories, even if barely populated or if the names are locally inappropriate). This is fundamentally contradictory to SMALLCAT. There's also a naming problem. "UK" doesn't strictly apply to either the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands. For WWII prison camps, does this mean "in the UK" or "of the UK"? The scope at present is geographical, but does a political scope make more sense? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I have similar concerns about WP:SMALLCAT but our solutions may be different. See this discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both - to Category:Internment camps in the British Isles, which will make a good parent to the variety of somewhat diverse content. Neither Alderney not Isle of Man are constitutionally part of UK: they are internally self-governing Crown dependencies. The IoM subcategory would be better for being renamed to add WWII to the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's probably the best alternative. This way, while not in the UK, the category at least keeps a connection with the UK. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 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:Macedonian hegemony[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: merge. MER-C 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, hegemony is not a defining characteristic of the content that it is in this category. Besides we already have a category associated with Macedonian hegemony, namely Category:Macedonian Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 2 April 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:Church historians[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: merge. MER-C 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 2 April 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:Psychiatric patients[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. ("Mormonsims": the video game, I assume.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a specific type of patient is not a defining characteristic of a person, so categories should not (and generally do not) contain the word "patient". Instead, the common Wikipedia categorization for people with diseases is "People with X" - see Category:People by medical or psychological condition. (For full disclosure, there are currently 2 other "patient" categories, located in Category:Patients. These have also been brought to CFD.) A person may have a psychiatric illness their entire lives, but they are not always a patient. This category should be renamed "People with x", and I chose "mental and behavioural disorders" since a category already exists called Category:Mental and behavioural disorders. This renamed category should be a child of Category:Mental and behavioural disorders, as well as Category:People by medical or psychological condition. It should be a parent of the other psychiatric-related disorders, including: Category:People with anorexia nervosa, Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Category:People on the autism spectrum, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, Category:People with factitious disorders, Category:Hypochondriacs, Category:People with mood disorders, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with social anxiety disorder, etc. This revised category should mostly be a container category, as most psychiatric diseases already have their own categories. People with non-specific psychiatric disorders, or historical people with an unknown psychiatric issue (ex "insane") could perhaps stay in the container category. Scott Alter (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In Principle as nominated for the loose articles. My one reservation is that the two subcategories about being detained at specific mental hospitals. Maybe move those over to Category:Psychiatric hospitals instead? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the detained subcategories don't really fit either in a "Psychiatric patients" category, or a "People with mental and behavioural disorders" category. I can't find a great parent category for those 2 detained subcategories, but they shouldn't stay here whether or not this passes. Category:Psychiatric hospitals is much better option. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — All of these categories make me deeply uncomfortable, as I fail to see any physical or mental illness as a defining characteristic in the case of most articles and their subjects. I’m sure there has been a lot of discussion about this topic, so I won’t repeat it here. giso6150 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giso6150: I created the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree because I think, usually, when these topics are defining it's because the person later became an activist for better treatment. I'm not seeing a current similar biography category for mental health though. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I completely agree with your reasons for creating the Category:Health activists by diseases and disorders tree. The existence of Category:Psychiatric patients (or Category:People with mental and behavioural disorders) does not bother me. It’s the application of the category that is problematic. Examples like yours demonstrate that there is clear need for some kind of categorization by disease. In that way, I support in principle as well. This is a tricky one. giso6150 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could support that. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Purge -- The content covers those who had a mental breakdown and Abe Lincoln's widow who was not surprisingly overcome by grief. Some of the ancient cases probably have to remain here, because assigning them to particular diseases would be original research, but in general, this should mainly be a container category, or merged with the parent cat for the more specific conditions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete, and oppose rename as it's almost as bad. Waaay too broad. And I'm looking at the performers and other celebrities and I think its a stretch to call this "defining" by any stretch of the imagination. If there's some cat for some applicable specific medical issue for each individual, then cat articles as appropriate, but this cat needs to go away. - jc37 10:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In looking through these articles, there is almost no instances of this being a defining characteristic. Moreover, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a reader would want to navigate between these articles. Besides, when psychiatric treatment is a true defining characteristic, there will presumably be a diagnosis available. That creates significant overlap with more specific categories in Category:People by medical or psychological condition. There's no need for a broad category covering mental illness. ~ RobTalk 06:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that some people in the past have been committed to psychiatric institutions for joining Mormonsims, and I believe in some cases wanting to marry someone of a different race, should show that historically this process has been extremely misued. Since being "patients" in theory also includes anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant by a doctor, or met with any type of mental health counselor, it is not really defining, over broad, and in many cases not very publicly known. We know Jeffrey R. Holland has been treated for depression because he publicly admitted it, but that was 10 or so years after the Wikipedia article on him was created, and 40 years after he became notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The target is even more problematic. Some forms of depression are passing. Should a woman who had post-partum depression with her second child 50 years ago, but did not have it with her two subsequent children, and did not become notable until 20 years ago be in such a category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. Deleting this category would be a good move too, for the reasons mentioned above by others. It just shouldn't stand as-is. --Scott Alter (talk) 13:15, 6 June 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:Provinces of Roman Gaul[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: keep. No consensus on renaming. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Roman Gaul was a territory, merely defined as an ethno-/cultural-historical area of Celtic settlement; possibly also by the fact it was –in a body– defeated and conquered by Julius Caesar. Making them a container (separate from the rest) is a concession to out-of-date Franco-centric historiography, which is particularly questionable in the face of the history of French foreign policy (with varying definitions of its fringes towards the east or north-east, or what was perceived as 'Gaul' or territorial claim of France). 109.45.2.22 (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject History and WikiProject France have been notified about this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Well, if not kept, at least double merge to both parents, the other being Category:Roman Gaul. But as that category exists, with a well-established sub-category structure and a lead article Roman Gaul, I'd say keep. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 1 Keep and rename to Category:Provinces in Roman Gaul. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since parent Category:Ancient Roman provinces contains multiple of these provinces categories within larger territories of the Roman Empire (e.g. in Hispania, North Africa) so it's not a form of ghettoization as nominator suggests. Neutral about the alternative name, no preference for "of" or "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the explanation by Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: CFD tag was placed on talk page instead of category page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - considering a similar case of category:Ottoman Syria. we may keep this one as well.GreyShark (dibra) 08:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Gaul was a diocese in the late Roman arrangement, when provinces had been heavily subdivided. Applying that might be anachronistic for earlier periods, but I am not sure that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 9 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_2&oldid=1074815883"