Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1[edit]

Millennia in the Old Swiss Confederacy[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 some and move some depending on this nom. Everyone supported --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added January 2
Rest of millennium categories of former states
Nominator's rationale: delete/rename because the Old Swiss Confederacy only existed in the 2nd millennium. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies to Crown of Aragon, Austria-Hungary, Duchy of Carniola, Kingdom of Castile, Czechoslovakia, Dutch Republic, French India, Republic of Genoa, Habsburg Monarchy, Grand Duchy of Hesse, Kingdom of Kakheti, Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), New France, New Spain, Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Syria, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of Saxony, Kingdom of Sicily, South-West Africa, Soviet Union, Swedish overseas colonies, State of the Teutonic Order. Thirteen Colonies, Grand Duchy of Tuscany, County of Württemberg, Duchy of Württemberg and Kingdom of Württemberg. On the other hand the Roman Republic only existed in the 1st millennium BC, so no reason to split by millennium either. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Marcocapelle, I applaud your thoroughness in building this nomination. The history of Carniola goes back into the first millennium, but I can't see any scope to categorise any articles with a specific date of establishment before 1000, so I have no objection. I've given Establishments in Carniola a trimmed version of the template from 20th-century establishments in Carniola. There will be plenty more scope to provide specific navigation templates of that kind if this is approved. The main loss to the encyclopedia will be that Category:2nd-millennium establishments by country will no longer have a full breakdown by country, although navigation via its century sub-cats will not be affected. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The job you have done here, with renaming proposed where possible, is even better than I had first realised. I've now added templates on the few others noted as "already exists" in your nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the Carniola navigation template is not needed any more after merger at CFD Jan 3. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason that these categories were created is that the "Millennia" categories appear as redlinks on century categories when using standard templates. There are two options for getting rid of the redlinks when these categories are deleted: (1) expand the century templates (using "subst:") and then trim the result; or (2) edit the century templates, so that millennia categories only appear if they exist. Until now I have been adopting the first approach, but if we are getting rid of so many millennia categories then it will be better to change the templates. The latter also means that new century categories using the templates will not prompt people to (re-)create millennia categories.
Pinging @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: @Od Mishehu: re [1]. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and again applaud his thoroughness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with thanks. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the loon who probably created half of these is not more. I agree that we should just add a parameter in the century template that ignores the millennium option as the hard-coded text on its own is quite difficult to parse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it might make this more attractive to be closed if one or more of us indicated a willingness to implement it. Well, I'm up for it. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support closure and listing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. Then the manual work can begin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 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:History of the Old Swiss Confederacy[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 12:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is no point in having a separate history category, because all of it is history. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 1 January 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:Mayors of Moorhead, Minnesota[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, this is overcategorization. Sionk (talk) 00:07, 4 January 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:Theatres in Los Angeles County, California[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) 06:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For some reason, this category was renamed to Theatres instead of Theaters (which is now a soft redirect) even though it is a British spelling and Los Angeles and Hollywood are in the US. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are additional theatre categories around Los Angeles but it's New Year's Eve and I'm done editing. I'll add them tomorrow or someone else can add them. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to previous discussions on this subject. It just seemed anomalous to have a British spelling in the U.S. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary variation in spelling in the same category tree. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I conceptually agree with the nomination, but I don't think these minor spelling oddities are worth changing. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 3 January 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_January_1&oldid=1127488181"