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.
Comment Though our article classifies Sichuanese Mandarin as a "dialect" of Mandarin, it also notes that there are cases where it is no longer mutually intelligible with other dialects.: "Although Sichuanese is generally classified as a dialect of Mandarin, it is highly divergent in phonology, vocabulary, and even grammar from the standard language. The Minjiang dialect is especially difficult for speakers of other Mandarin dialects to understand." Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still classified as "Mandarin". There are over 70+ Category:English dialects and I doubt every one of us can understand every "English" dialect with ease, but I don't see Category:English-language films containing ANY subcategory. There are already Category:Films set in Sichuan and Category:Films set in Chongqing if you want to be region-specific. Besides, I believe most films in this category are in Chengdu-Chongqing dialect rather than the Minjiang dialect. I'm no linguist, but I think the main difference between Chengdu-Chongqing dialect and standard Mandarin is in tones rather than pronunciation, and most films in this category star actors who never lived in Sichuan or Chongqing. If the Minjiang dialect is so different that it justifies a separate category, then I'd have no problem with a different subcategory, but honestly which film is in that dialect? Timmyshin (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a linguist either but apparently the claim that the differences are mostly in tone is probably incorrect. this page gives some examples of differences between Standard Chinese and Sichuanese.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be wary -- I have no idea how mutually comprehensible Chinese languages are, but historically there was a tendency to refer to independent languages as mere dialects. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my totally unscientific personal estimation, Chengdu-Chongqing dialect is 95+% intelligible with standard Mandarin for newscasts/documentaries and maybe 80+% for films (depending on the amount of noise and slang). I believe most Mandarin speakers will consider it a Mandarin dialect. Pinging the creator of the category, User:本本一世. Timmyshin (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a newscast, then it's probably going to be in Sichuanese Standard Mandarin and designed to be more understandable to non-Sichuanese speakers. Based on my experience with Sichuanese speakers (I don't know specifically where they were from) I'd say it's at most 70% at best, but that would be for more colloquial speech. That being said, I looked up some of the films in the category, and it seems like the soundtrack was mostly in more comprehensible Standard Sichuanese Mandarin, but occasionally it could be difficult.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, I presume, since there are apparently films specifically spoken in Sichuanese, that the topic of Sichuanese-spoken films is notable and appropriate for a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on scientific research "Pure" Sichuanese has limited mutual intelligibility with Standard Mandarin. Nominator gives the impression that the the. Level of comprehensibility between Standard Mandarin and Sichuanese is the same with Standard English and Ebonics, but this just simply isn't true. Alos, we have separate categories for Category:Czech-language films and Category:Slovak-language films but they are mutually intelligible.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit I am not convinced that Ebonics language films would be a bad classification, but I also think the argument that Ebonics is a distinct language is a better argument than some do. Actually, the reason that Ebonics language films would be bad as a classification has nothing to do with mutual inteligibility. It has to do with the fact that there is not a body of films intentionally created in Ebonics in a way meant to exclude those who do not speak Ebonics from watching. There are films created by African-Americans for African-Americans with strong dialectical usage, but they still exist in a way that someone unfamiliar with Ebonics could watch it and understand the words. A better analogy probably would be Category:Gullah-language films, any reading of the article on Gullah language would support this view, but as far as I know such do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 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.
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:double merge per WP:SMALLCAT, too little content to keep a separate category for each medium-sized Italian city. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge each category unless you can find/create at least 5 articles for it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. I am curious: Is there a rule that categories need to have a minimum of articles to exist. In the case of theaters, I made the category because someday, someone might fit in other types of theaters into the entry. But if this is a rule, then I have many towns with a category of Churches in blah-blah-blah town of Italy, with 2-3 articles, although there anywhere from 5-20 church buildings in the town. Just curious.Rococo1700 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other question is how does this affect Theaters by city categories?Rococo1700 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BackgroundWP:SMALLCAT is the relevant policy here but it doesn't give a strict cutoff so you can prefer as few as 2 articles while I prefer 5. In practice, most editors in most nominations want 5 articles, but there are several exceptions to that policy. I may not be the best one to give you a neutral background here since I feel strongly SMALLCAT is too subjective and proposed a strict cutoff here, but most editors prefer the current flexibility.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Many of these contain 1 article so they're not grouping at all. Fracturing up these articles seems to hinder rather than help navigation but no objection to recreating if/when we get to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:47, 19 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 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge as it is not clear how the two categories distinguish from each other, they have the same main article Ice. There has been a previous discussion long time ago with not too convincing arguments (I think). While in theory "ice" is broader than "water ice", as pointed out in that discussion, the content of both categories is about the same, namely water ice. If there is really a need to keep "water" in the category name, we could also have a reverse merge, although that would not be my first preference. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at the first 2 and last 2 articles in Category:Ice - these are not about water ice. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose in astronomy, at the least, it is very clear that "ice" is not the same as "water ice", which is just one type of ice. And this is commonly found throughout discourses about various ices found in the universe. In the recent exploration of Pluto, nitrogen ice glaciers and snow is evident the surface of water ice rock -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination in this form. I wonder if we can match the category names to the article name better, possibly rename to Category:Ice (popular) and Category:Ice (scientific). At the very least it would be helpful if someone would write a header for Category:Ice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is the problem of where to classify ice giants which are composed of "oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur" but not water. Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 25 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.
Do Not Merge Yet a Village in many places is an administrative/governmental category. This may be the case with the ones in this article. Just because a place in unpopulated doesn't necessarily mean it has ceased to exist as an administrative area.--Jahaza (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm leaning delete but it should be noted that, with one Bosnian exception, these all seem to be stub articles based on some Estonian census. Estonia is divided up into municipalities, which are county subdivisions. The places listed are smaller than that, and indeed what I see is that, as is not uncommon with these names-from-a-database, there seem to be issues with there being any "there" there. The very first case, Aabra, has coordinates which drop one on top of a house with some outbuildings, possibly some sort of estate but not a town of any sort. Google's map applies the name to an area of forest nearby. The only citation (the on-line census database) names a village but doesn't locate it any more definitely than by the containing municipality. The problem is that it doesn't give a reason for the zero population. The village could be abandoned; it could be renamed or absorbed into a larger place; or it might not have existed in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For one of the villages, German WP seems to suggest it has been abandoned due to the land reform of around 1920, as a result of which a lot of Germans left the new-established country. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My main reaction is why do we have articles on villages in Estonia with no population that are longer than articles on places in Peru with 30,000 people. Wikipedia has a clear centering on North America and Europe at the expense of coverage of Africa and South America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent. The majority are places with no current population. One shows a lighthouse and a row of cottages, so that it is clearly a former populated place. We have a well-developed tree for them. I believe that England has a couple of parishes with no existing population. We moved away from city/town/village splits, because there was no robust criterion for the split. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 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.
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 To better match other categories in this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- though moving to a depopulated places tree might be better, but that would be a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 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.
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, as that late proposal gathered a head of steam, with persuasive arguments, and there were no objections to it. Moreover, the contents all seem to be otherwise adequately categorised, so no merger is necessary. – FayenaticLondon 21:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These category names for regions of SNCF—which are just French compass-direction names—seem to be sufficiently ambiguous that they should be disambiguated. There are no articles for these regions that we could match the names to; I propose just adding a "(SNCF)" for each. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; seems reasonable. With so many non-native-English-speakers editing en.WP, the existence of bare non-English categories like this may imply that we want French (or whatever) equivalent categories created for things, if they don't understand the exact nature of the contents of the category. This is a good case of disambiguating because the thing is naturally ambiguous, not because it's conflicting with something else we already have an article on (I wish I could get the over-controllers of WP:AT and WP:DAB to understand this; every time I try to add anything about this concept there I get reverted on it by one of two editors, despite that fact that WP:RM performs such disambiguations all the time. [sigh]). Never mind; I hadn't thought to look in a while, but a variant of what I proposed is actually in WP:Disambiguation now: "Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." Happy day! — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename highly ambiguous, many countries have these regions (since they are French speaking countries) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEF, the fact that a company organizes its activities (also) per region is too obvious to categorize. I can't imagine we do this for any other company and if we do we should delete those as well. Besides this division in five regions isn't even mentioned in the SNCF article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these effectively subsidiaries? I guess main articles for each region would be helpful here. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are at all, only at such a low level that it isn't notable, the SNCF website doesn't mention it and the French WP article doesn't mention it either. The five main divisions are: SNCF Réseau; SNCF Voyageurs; SNCF Logistics; SNCF Immobilier; SNCF Keolis. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Rename if Kept/Delete I would actually favor translating these into English (Category:North Region (SNCF), etc.) If that fails, I'll support this rename as an improvement. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I have no objection to deletion if users prefer to go that direction. There are no articles about these regions and as noted they are not mentioned in the relevant articles. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In principle rename whether in English or French. These are at most railway regions, not those used for France as a nation. I am not expressing an opinion on whether they should exist at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even fr:Société nationale des chemins de fer français mentions these five SNCF "super-regions", while it does mention the 23 directions régionales. Also, neither fr.wikipedia nor de.wikipedia (which is quite comprehensive on rail topics) doesn't organize stations and railway lines by these five SNCF "super-regions". Additionally, with the merger of the formerly 22 metropolitan regions to 13 new administrative regions, the latter will become more important, while those five SNCF "super-regions" would most probably be phased out. --PanchoS (talk) 21:01, 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.
