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 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per this earlier discussion. These are new-created categories after the previous discussion started. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a little surprised additional categories were created when the existing ones were already nominated for deletion with a couple votes to delete. I don't see a speedy criteria here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: "Surprised" meaning it wasn't okay? I disagree. The other categories were almost immediately nominated after creation, and the immediate comments didn't convince me as being conclusive. So I certainly needed the opportunity to prove my concept. I have to admit not to be completely convinced that I succeeded with collecting enough material, so as the creator I remain neutral on these for now, but I disagree with the rude ways a totally plausible, though maybe not yet content-rich category tree has been treated. Also I insist this to be the preliminary outcome without prejudice against recreation if someone manages to collect more material. --PanchoS (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised meaning I'm not sure it was a good use of your time or ours. I have no objection to recreating if more content appears, like with winter in Canada and the US. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Well, I devoted some more time to these, as I firmly believed in the merits of the seasons and specifically winter being a useful concept of categorizing content. I actually still do. See how Category:Winter by country is a massive category tree on Commons. Don't say this translates 1:1 to Wikipedia, but the foreign-language equivalents of Category:Winter have quite some localized content that in an international Wikipedia such as the English one would be best organized on a per-country base. Plausible categories, and often enough even implausible ones, normally would have gotten at least a few weeks or months in time to develop. These ones didn't, okay, so there you go. Not my fault, except for being a bit too bold in the first place. I considered this to be so obvious that a more tactical approach didn't even come into my mind. --PanchoS (talk) 12:45, 14 March 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. – FayenaticLondon 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 12 March 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:1912 establishments in Saint Helena[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:change parent of this category to Category:Establishments in Saint Helena and Dependencies by year. The rename suggested in the nomination would go against precedent by using an anachronistic name. The main objection the the nominated category seems to be that it has spawned an unnecessary superstructure of parent categories. I will merge and restructure the parents so that there is only one hierarchy for establishments, e.g. Category:20th-century establishments in Saint Helena and Dependencies can include the years before 1922 when St Helena had no dependencies. As there are not yet any Establishments categories beyond 2009, the establishments categories can be left at the older "…and Dependencies" name for now, rather than the current "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha".
Merge -- This whole tree contains one article. This is a modest sized island colony. Tristran da Cunha had only a small population. I am not sure what population Ascension had, but it is now largely a military base. I would suggest the article should be directly in a category for St Helena (or it and dependencies) and also Category:1912 establishments in the British Empire. Placing it in a continental category seems inappropriate since it is in the midst of an ocean. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 13 March 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:rename/delete as specified. MER-C 10:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we should avoid anachronism. Penang was British Straits Settlements from late 1700s to 1941. In 1948 it became Penang federate state of Malaya.GreyShark (dibra) 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For completeness one should add that it was under Japanese occupation 1941-5, with the Straits Settlements presumably being at least notionally revived in 1945. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 13 March 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment What is the rationale for this nomination? I'm hesitant about this. We should consider that Category:Scholars also contains ancient and medieval scholars before any university existed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, the type of subcategories in Category:Scholars is completely different from that in Category:Academics. I'm afraid it'll become very messy when we merge them. It may be more meaningful, in every instance when there is a pair of categories for Academics and for Scholars, to have Academics consistently as a child category of Scholars, such that single articles in the Scholars category only contain non-academics. And if there aren't any non-academics, the scholars parent can simply be deleted. For example (that's already the case): Category:French academics is a child category of Category:French scholars, so scholars who are directly in the scholars category are presumably non-academics (or if they are academics, they should be moved down). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We might have the target as a parent to the others. I think the mischief here is categorising academics as scholars. There is a see also link. We need to apply a narrow definition to scholars, so that academics are excluded from it. St Thomas Aquinas was clearly a scholar, but not an academic. People should only have a scholars category if they are not academics (save by parenting). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a clearer explanation of what I intended to say earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per arguments of User:Marcocapelle & User:Peterkingiron. Cgingold (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose scholar and academic are distinct, if at times overlapping terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 26 March 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:Scholars by specialty or field of research[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.
Support - I created this category and I'm OK with renaming it. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 05:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "subfields", but I don't think we need to insert "and academics" since academics are part of scholars (per discussion above). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 27 March 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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (as Category creator) - First and most obvious, this is not "Categories by academic field" -- it's "Categories by field". That's because not all of the contents are "academic fields". Furthermore, ALL of the sub-categories are, in fact, Categories by field -- it's right there in their names -- which is why I grouped them together under this umbrella category in the first place. Bottom line: this proposal just doesn't make sense. I do want to thank User:Fgnievinski for taking the trouble to notify me of this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 20 March 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 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.
Weak oppose - seems to be a reasonable potential for growth, given the number of links to individuals in the articles in Category:Fascism in the Arab world. Needs filling rather than deleting. Grutness...wha? 18:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through those articles and I although think some of those individuals might qualify, there still weren't really that many of them (although I could be wrong). Charles Essie (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems possible that there's scope for expansion, even if we don't have all that many articles now - the topic isn't self-limiting like those listed at WP:SMALLCAT. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could try expanding it. I'm not sure with what though. Charles Essie (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- "Fascist" refers to an Italian political party. Elsewhere it is a term of abuse by opponents. I have no objection to an article, but am very dubious of having a category, without editorial POV being required. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 13 March 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:Recipients of the Médaillon Des Deux Épées[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
During the late 1700s, if you served in the French military for 24 years, you would automatically be given this award which would reduce your chore schedule. The only article in the category (Jean Thurel) is known for his longevity: he served for 90 years and, therefore, automatically received the award 3 times. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Not defining. I doubt we need to listify a long service award, but I would not object to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 13 March 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:Fields of application of statistics[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:rename. MER-C 11:30, 27 March 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:Branches of sociology (interdisciplinary)[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:rename. MER-C 11:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sounds better while not changing the meaning. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 27 March 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: The key article is at the official name, this should match. Alternatively, the more common term could be retained, but grammar dictates that a hyphen should be added to the current title to make it Category:New Zealand Crown-owned entities. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The proposed name matches that used by the NZ government (eg SSC, Treasury, Te Ara). --Pakaraki (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but comment : Support, but should the title be Crown Entity (capital E) not Crown entity; as in the State Services and Trteasury websites, though not in Te Ara? Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the capital E in the examples above is mainly used in section titles, not in body text. So I guess we shouldn't use a capital E here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 21 March 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.
