Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]

Category:Scottish regiments[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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy:

There may be scope for two distinct categories but the two current names lead to unclear inclusion criteria. Tim! (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Regiments of Scotland as that's the one that's causing confusion - it implies regiments that are somehow under the command of Nicola Sturgeon, when they are wholly integrated parts of the British Army. There's possibly a WP:SMALLCAT of extant regiment articles that have their origins before the Act of Union, but no more than three or so, and I think they all started after the union of crowns. There were regiments of the Kingdom of Scotland before that but they were generally named after their leader, and any material about them is probably best put in his article rather than as separate articles, the unit generally lasted as long as he did. So there might be scope for a Category:Regiments of the Kingdom of Scotland but probably not. Still, it's a good example of editors tending to WP:OVERCAT British categories as I mentioned over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Le Deluge (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- These are regiments of the British army that are raised and have a home station in Scotland. They are thus ethnically Scottish. I do not think that the Scottish crown had standing regiments before the Union of the crowns in 1603. However there may have been Scottish regiments raised under William III and Anne, probably paid for by English taxes. Soldiers serve the crown, not Parliament, so that 1603 is the appropriate union date. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as above. "Regiments of Scotland" implies they are part of some fictitious Scottish army, as opposed to British Army regiments raised in Scotland, which is what most of them are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, it does not make sense to have two categories and Scottish regiments is the less ambiguous category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 31 March 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.

Western Conference football seasons[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 22:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Big Ten Conference was known as the Western Conference at the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 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:Split Science Museum and Zoo[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: administrative close, this category does not exist (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Split Science Museum does not contain a zoo any more. 13:52, 13 March 2017 (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.

Category:Scouting in Saudi Arabia[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Guiding also exists in SA. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. Obvious and in line with categories for other countries. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, C2C speedy? Looks like a C2C to me, there's a couple of others in there as well. Le Deluge (talk) 01:29, 17 March 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:Brazilian people of Native Brazilian descent[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: relisted here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The difference between the two categories is entirely negligible, in fact many articles are included in both categories. However on the latter category is standard across the board while I've never seen any category titled like the former. Lastly the former category is also confusing. While both categories refer to people who are of indigenous descent, technically anyone born in Brazil could call themselves a "Native Brazilian". Yes we do have Category:American people of Native American descent (a category which I think sounds pretty ironic), but the difference here is that Native American is the most widely used term for the original people of the United States, while Indigenous is more widely used in Brazil. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not be opposed if the former category was kept as a redirect to the latter. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:14, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1090392317"