Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30[edit]

Category:Companies spun off from Nortel[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 to Category:Corporate spin-offs (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT. This would be fine if there were five or six things to file here, but it's not needed for just one. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 June 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:Headmasters of The Hill School[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 to Category:The Hill School faculty and Category:School principals and headteachers (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 links, unnecessary, pretentious. Peapod21 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 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.

Roman Egypt[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. – Fayenatic London 18:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as follow-up on this earlier discussion where a reverse merge was nominated. Assuming that nobody wants to keep the Egypt and Roman Egypt categories in parallel for these centuries, and since the previous nomination was opposed, this new nomination should normally be endorsed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging earlier discussants @Caeciliusinhorto, Peterkingiron, and Greyshark09:. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- There is no essential difference between Hellenic (or Ptolemaic) Egypt, Roman Egypt and later Egypt. There was no non-Roman Egypt to require disambiguating. The core has been essentially intact for 5000 years, though the outer imperial boundaries have fluctuated between periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rationale of nom and the majority of those who participated in the previous discussion. It's now fairly well settled policy that we avoid ahistorical naming. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the reasons listed by Laurel Lodged. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clearly reasonable. Maybe later we can also distinguish between Roman Egypt and Byzantine Egypt as well, since Christianized Coptic Byzantine Egypt was quite different than pagan Hellenic-Roman Egypt province.GreyShark (dibra) 13:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:19, 7 July 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:Urban, rural, regional, real estate, and transportation economics[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 per WP:OVERLAPCAT and precedents for JEL code categories.
Nominator's rationale: delete, hodgepodge of unrelated topics. This category clearly illustraties how JEL classification codes use completely different categorization principles than Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 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:Pontifical Commissions & Category:Pontifical Councils[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. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The terms pontifical commissions and pontifical councils are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized (in contrast to specific pontifical commissions and pontifical councils, e.g., Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). This would bring the capitalization into line with the main article in each category. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This matches where the main articles currently are. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 30 June 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:Law of the Jungle (TV series) participants[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. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of performers by performance. This groups people who have been guests on the variety program Law of the Jungle; it's a non-defining characteristic. There is a long-standing precedence against these types of categories: User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Reality TV participants. ℯxplicit 00:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Note that this category has a whole lot of sibling categories that might be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 8 July 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.

Ancient year and decade categories in Egypt, France, Germany, India and the Maya civilization[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 according to Option B. Although the support for option B in this discussion is marginal, it makes sense to close this consistently with other recent CFD closures. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More categories nominated for merging
Nominator's rationale: merge to century categories per country per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories have only one article without a reasonable chance of expansion.
Note 1: on the talk page there is a list of container categories that naturally become empty if this merge is accepted. Though they haven't been tagged, it would be helpful if they are deleted upon closing this discussion.
Note 2: this is a continuation of the previous nomination of June 1. @Oculi, Tim!, Nyttend, Peterkingiron, J 1982, Neutrality, and Inter&anthro: pinging same editors as before, as you have participated in earlier discussions in the same field, feel free to comment on this new nomination too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Fragmentation of small categories such as Category:4th-century disestablishments in India is a bad idea. Oculi (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. However, we should consider putting the Egypt articles into Asia also; they're all related to the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which often controlled the southern parts of the Fertile Crescent. In the same way, if there are earlier categories, a future nomination should be careful, since the power of the Egyptian empire under certain kings of the New Kingdom, e.g. Thutmose III, was projected well to the north in the Fertile Crescent, so such categories might also have Asian items. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any older year categories in Egypt than the ones nominated, afaics. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping the continent category layer altogether (as discussed below) would immediately solve this Egyptian issue as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and well-established precedent - too many of these bitty categories.Le Deluge (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally but I am not sure the continental categories are useful and would merge direct to the year category. The Maya have good dating, but I think this is unique in America. Egypt has good dating, but that is probably unique in Africa. This also avoids the objection as to the need for an Asian target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed likely that won't even have enough content by continent by year to make a continent split. But let's first see how the country mergers turn out before turning to the next layer of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'm no great fan of continent categories, apart from eg (association) football, where continental confederations are the main unit of organisation. But continental categories imply a X by continent parent category, which even if you count 7 continents is pretty much a classic WP:SMALLCAT. Personally I'd nuke the continent layer before say 1500 and let the Egyptians and Maya mingle.Le Deluge (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I've been too conservative in the nomination, as I don't have any specific objections against merging to global year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option B: skip continents category layer (as discussed)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to give Option B a chance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend and Oculi: As you've reacted here in an early stage, and haven't reacted yet in the follow-up discussion, could you please give your thoughts on option B? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all (B) as a good first step. Let's see the shape of it thereafter. More upmerges may be necessary. 1500AD as a cut-off point is a tad too Euro-centric. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per nom: "But let's first see how the country mergers turn out before turning to the next layer of categorization." The present set-up is well-organised and coherent (but sparsely populated), and cfd can tend to leave a mess behind (by dismantling part of a category tree and moving on, leaving roots and branches disconnected). Oculi (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion about option B. Nyttend (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- In the long term I would prefer Option B, but would accept Option A as an interim measure. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Option B, as the next discussion has now been closed in favor of option B, this discussion should be closed as option B as well, to keep it all aligned. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I've slightly adapted the targets for the French and Egyptian categories in order to comply with the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_1#Years_in_the_Rome_Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 22 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_30&oldid=1074283005"