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: A typo during category creation. Renaming needed to bring it in the standard format, i.e. Sport in Milan, Sport in Pristina, etc. Mondiad (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match sister cats --Lenticel(talk) 12:31, 11 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.
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 12:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No particular reason to distinguish between defunct and current political entities. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Considered opposing the one that had five members, but it turned out that its parent category only had 1 member so it's still afoul of SMALLCAT. Also Propose that Category:Defunct political party alliances by country be Deleted if these categories are deleted as it is almost entirely a container for these categories. There are two additional categories in it for Moldova and Myanmar, but those will not be orphaned, they're each in other categories.--Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the latter delete as well. Makes sense if only two child categories are left. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support all -- We do not usually allow category splits for present/past. Political alliances tend to be relatively ephemeral anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 17 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:People from Westampton Township, New Jersey[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 12:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Categories with 1, 2, or 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support All With no objection to recreating later if they get up to 5 or so articles. Since so many individual housing developments in New Jersey have stand-alone municipal status, these hamlets are unlikely to have this many notable people. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support All Tiny categories with no particular scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 14 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.
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 12:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Almost none of the articles in the category mentions Fertile Crescent. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend the latter merge since it would probably blur up Category:Levant with articles about Mesopotamia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-populated category. Per our article of the Fertile Crescent, this is mostly an archaeological term grouping together Western Asia, the Nile Valley and the Nile Delta. It is useful, and does not seem to be a synonym to the Levant. No opposition however to this being a parent category for more specific geographical and cultural entities. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every term and every article needs to have its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category seems to be trying to merge articles on ancient locations, articles on 20th-century people, and general geographical articles for no good reason. It is a hodge podge mess that is not helping navigation and should be deleted.20:10, 23 January 2016 (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:Upmerge/delete. Many parallel European categories have anachronisms, like Category:Earthquakes in Italy. For convenience, we use the current boundaries as markers for physical places, and this seems to have majority support below. If this is unsatisfactory to you, some of the country-specific categories are tagged for merging into European-wide categories, which can be dealt with in separate discussions; there is no consensus for that below. There does seem to be support for the idea that these Carniola categories are just too small, whether or not the European categories are too big. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article each. Note that a double merge is not needed, the four articles are in the tree of Category:History of Carniola already. After the merge, the parent categories become empty and can thus be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2016
Oppose - it is anachronistic to merge this categories to categories of Slovenia. The history of Carniola encompasses almost 1000 years, which means these categories are easily expandable. Particularly 'Politics of Carniola' should be kept, because the situation was quite diverse at the time. --Eleassarmy talk 15:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the easily expandable. Not only was it a very tiny state, it was also not independent for the larger part of its 1000 years of history. I'm willing to go along with the anachronism argument, implying that upmerge can be changed into deletemerge to the respective category in Europe. Again, all content is already in History of Carniola.Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger to Slovenia categories. Merger to Holy Roman Empire categories might work for some of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good suggestion. So instead of merging to Europe categories it becomes: merge to Holy Roman Empire categories before the year 1806, or to Austrian Empire categories from 1804 to 1867, or to Austria-Hungary categories afterwards.Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I hadn't checked this myself. In this case a merge to Europe would be best, after all.Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fayenatic. I too think there has been too much of an emphasis on avoiding anachronisms in categories, which has led to a tremendous amount of duplication and very small categories. Most readers will naturally seek for historical things using modern names of regions. Redirects can simply be added to the Carniolan categories. Fayenatic's great example is that there is no Category:Environment of the Holy Roman Empire, nor should there be. (Though I can think of a few enterprising users who might choose to shove the beans up their nose at this point.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging categories of the Holy Roman Empire to the category 'Germany'? Sarcasm aside, the fact that there is a stub named '1622 Slovenia earthquake' does not by itself mean that the name is ok and should not be revised. The history of Carniola is diverse and spans almost 1000 years, it is a subject that has been studied in numerous books and articles. A number of articles have been and will be written about it. Why shouldn't we categorize them separately so that anyone interested in Carniola could have a quick overview of them without having to browse all the numerous 'Slovenia' categories? --Eleassarmy talk 09:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with there being some sort of category connection to Carniola—I'm not against that at all. The question is how deep into the tree do Carniolan topics needs to go? In this case, as pointed out, I think Category:History of Carniola is sufficient, given the amount of material. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The anachronism discussion is a tough one, I've struck my previous comments and will stay neutral. I'd just be fine to have these one-article categories dissolved one way or another as they just hinder easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Europe categories. An earthquake in 1895 should not be categorized by being in a country not formed until after World War I. The exact foundation date for Slovenia is a bit fuzzy to me, but it is clearly after World War I. Earthquakes happen in very specific places at very specific times, they should be categorized by what place it was then. The one earthquake in question is already in the category for Austria-Hungary in that year, so we do not need to worry about loosing that association by merger of the category to a general Europe one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit ridiculous from one point of view. What if a person wants to research all of the major earthquakes that have ever been in the geographical place that we now call Slovenia? Should they have to have a comprehensive knowledge of Slovenia's political history and know the names of every state that has ever controlled the territory? Of course not—just categorize the earthquakes in an Category:Earthquakes in Slovenia category! Slovenia and Slovenians have existed for a very long time—whether that existence has been reflected in the temporary political entities we call "states" is a different matter, but politics does not need to be the one factor that we use to control the entire reality. Earthquakes and geology are not really political issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very reasonable argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 25 February 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.
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: This is a prime example of why "songs about... don't work. Of 8 members only one could even remotely be considered as about witchcraft and I am leaning to consider that one as a love song using witchcraft as a metaphor as the others do except one - which is an instrumental based on a drug trip. Most of the articles don't actually say anything on the meaning of the lyrics, none with references, so neither defining nor scholarly. Richhoncho (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a "songs by title" category disguising as a "songs by content" category. These songs have very little to do with witchcraft. Dark Lady, which does have a summary of its content, makes clear that it is a murder ballad about a crime of passion. It is about a woman killing her unfaithful lover and his mistress. Nothing magical here. Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the usual problem with "about" categories: how much about the subject must the song be, and what reliable sources say it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 11 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.
