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:upmerge, too few articles about Barbaricum available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at the German Wiki category, it has 2 articles and 2 categories. I've added the second article, but the category de:Kategorie:Römischer Import (Barbaricum) only has 4 articles, none of which yet appears on English Wikipedia. So, as the creator, I'm inclined to support the upmerge unless other editors think the category could be further populated. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the proposal. It's a period of history that interests me and I cannot see much growth potential, really, so it would be best to move the two articles to the wider Roman geographic category. CravinChillies 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly merge but I wonder if the right course is not to downmerge to Category:Germania, which the article says is used by academics almost interchangeably with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) I'm neutral about the alternative, Barbaricum is technically more than Germania but the practical difference is small. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a downmerge too. Bermicourt (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2017 (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:no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as Category:British revolutionaries immediately below. Such a category is based on opinion only and therefore is in breach of WP:NPOV. Can you regard Cromwell, Ireton, etc. as "revolutionaries" or are they defined as Civil War Parliamentarians? If you say these two were revolutionaries, where does it end? Nonsense category which fails WP:CATDEF, inter alia. CravinChillies 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I understand and can agree with the argument that this is problematic, but there's nothing uniquely problematic about it that isn't also applicable to the entire rest of the Category:Revolutionaries by nationality tree too. So this should be handled as a batch discussion on the whole tree, because it isn't uniquely problematic in the UK context alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering it is part of a substantial category tree and I don't see what marks out Britain/England for deletion. Certainly people like Oliver Cromwell have been described as 'revolutionaries' and there exist a number of more recent political parties whose leaders/members decribe themselves as revolutionaries. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has ever been only one revolution in this country and the people of it are already in Category:People of the Interregnum (England). Other people in the nominated category mostly belong, and already are, in Category:English rebels. This may well be different in other countries, so I do not believe that this should wait for a batch nomination with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely revulutionaries are people who actively want to destroy or overthrow the current order, they don't need to have been successful (or even have participated in a 'revolution') to get the epithet. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that rebels aren't any different from revolutionairies, feel free to nominate a merge of the rebels category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the point I was making, or what I said. Otherwise I'd be agreeing with you (and anyway you argued for deletion not merger). Sionk (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a concrete example, does Robert Kett need to be in an English rebels category, an English revolutionaries category, or both? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sionk. It needs a note clarifying it only relates to pre-Act of Union. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2017 (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:no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is based on opinion and is therefore a breach of WP:NPOV. If it is meant to define a person's politics then surely a more accurate indicator would be their political party or movement, trade union, form of activism, etc. As you say, Thatcher could be considered a revolutionary and, at the opposite end of the British political spectrum, so could Tony Benn but, then again, so could certain Liberals, especially David Lloyd George. The category is nonsense, really. CravinChillies 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I understand and can agree with the argument that this is problematic, but there's nothing uniquely problematic about it that isn't also applicable to the entire rest of the Category:Revolutionaries by nationality tree too. So this should be handled as a batch discussion on the whole tree, because it isn't uniquely problematic in the UK context alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering it is part of a substantial category tree and I don't see what marks out Britain/England for deletion. Certainly people like Oliver Cromwell have been described as 'revolutionaries' and there exist a number of more recent political parties whose leaders/members decribe themselves as revolutionaries. Sionk (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2017 (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: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for one novel on a self-determined characteristic of its own setting. The "Lyrian" universe isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, as witness the fact that there's only one book to file here -- by comparison, what makes the Star Wars universe notable for the purposes of a category isn't the fact that the Star Wars films are set in it, but the fact that there's a whole industry out there of derivative works by other people also set in it. Every fantasy or science fiction book that exists does not automatically get one of these just to contain itself, however -- if there were a lot of "Lyrian" novels, then this would be fine (although it would still need to be renamed to Category:Lyrian novels for MOS:CAPS reasons), but it's not needed for just one novel. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is already in Category:American fantasy novels and I think that is sufficient. Certainly, you need several entries to establish a defining characteristic. CravinChillies 16:31, 29 August 2017 (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:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia[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.
Nominator's rationale Current name is too bulky. Equivalent Catholic province is called Perth. Disambiguation needed for the state of the same name. Would also accept ALT of Category:Province of Western Australia that matches lead article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question, can't we just rename it to Category:Province of Western Australia? It looks like the name of the main article isn't ambiguous, i.e. there is no other entity with the same name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge all province categories to Category:Anglican Church of Australia and consider merging the provincial articles, which are all stubs, into a table or navigational template (as is done for the Episcopal Church). As is typical in Anglican practice, there is next to nothing to say about the provinces other than which dioceses are members and which diocese's bishop is the titular metropolitan. This is particularly so in Australia, where the provinces are pretty small. As categories they appear to add an unnecessary level of navigation. Now, I'm not from Australia, so it's possible that there's more to provinces there than I see, but what I see is that there is only slightly more to it here than in my church. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit drastic. What about a single category for all Australian Anglican provinces? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that, for the other Anglican cases I know of, the provinces are unimportant, and our categorization and articles reflect that by putting the provinces in a table and the dioceses in a single category of all dioceses in that church. The provinces don't even have articles because essentially all you can say is "these dioceses are in the province" and outside the US "the bishop of X is also the nominal head of the province" (the ECUSA provinces don't even have that). Most likely the Australian situation is the same. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2017 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Category:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)