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 per Option B, as the least objected proposition. bd2412T 23:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as either option A or B per WP:SMALLCAT. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, in which we were close to consensus about merging as such, but the closing administrator User:BrownHairedGirl decided to close as no consensus because the choice between option A and B (as named in this new nomination) had never been discussed. The difference is in the second merge target. Note that, so far, the deaths by year categories only contain human beings, so it would be a novelty to include animals in the deaths by year categories as well. Personally I'm neutral between keeping the current practice (excluding animals in deaths by year) and changing the current practice (to have animals included). @Dimadick and Greenshed: pinging participants of previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal already incorporates merging to a century for animals. The question however is how we can incorporate these articles in the tree of a year. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to categorise by specific year. I would rather keep the present setup than rejig the entire people tree to add a handful of animals or add an animal to Category:1655, which should really be a container cat. Oculi (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Option A Conflating human deaths and animal deaths would be a big decision with wide implications for whole category hierarchies (including births). I don't think it helpful or appropriate to start that under what is a rather specialized question here. Greenshed (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modest support Option B So long as later cats like Category:18th-century individual animals are excluded (see previous discussion). Option B is ok. Greenshed (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative merge only toCategory:17th-century individual animals, etc. In later times there are articles about giant tortoises whose lifetime spanned three centuries, and so from that point it may become useful to have century categories for animal births and deaths, but for these it will be sufficient to categorise by the century in which they lived. I suggest we lose the categorisation detail about the year of death. – FayenaticLondon 07:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) No objections against this alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2018 (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:merge, the scope of the two categories overlaps too much, and no other city districts of Nizhny Novgorod have their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2018 (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 without prejudice to a fresh re-nomination that includes all subcategories. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated Excellent idea in principle, because ambiguously-named categories cause miscategorisation which is hard to detect. However, this is one of over 20 subcats of Category:Ipswich, none of which use "Suffolk" ... and I see no grounds for making people an exception to the naming convention. I would happily support a nomination to rename Category:Ipswich and all its subcats ... but I oppose inconsistency. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for the reasons given by BHG. Note too that Ipswich refers to the place in Suffolk, as it is the primary topic by quite some distance. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am reluctant to do this in the face of so much opposition. Birmingham had to gain a disambiguator for its category to keep out Birmingham AL. I not that Ipswich Mass has a well-populated category, which may mean that Ipswich (in Suffolk) too would begin to pick up inappropriate content. I would strongly oppose moving the article, but categories sometimes need the protection of a disambiguator, where the article does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst the article is at Ipswich, the cat should stay put, and its daughter cats should reflect the nomenclature of the parent to the extent possible. If the article moves, then we can re-open the debate; but, unlike Birmingham where there are category trees for at least two of them, I don't see that for Ipswich. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2018 (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 2010 onwards. – FayenaticLondon 08:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the main article was located in Italian Open (tennis), dropping the sponsored name, thus in lieu with other sports such as Premier League, such seasonal article and cat tree system should have only one name, Italian Open (tennis) + Year as "prefix", not Telecom Italia Masters and Internazionali BNL d'Italia + year.
Also, those seasonal articles are poorly sourced. 2017 Italian Open (tennis) was done sourcing on the name, and it is no dispute that " Italian Open" applies to individual season as common name (at least in 2017 season), since there is no dispute in Wikipedia:Article titles for individual season, the cat follow the main cat tree and article title should also had no dispute. But i should probably sourced all the name in individual season by the news article that from that year. Matthew_hktc 04:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
citing "Italian Open" as common name was done for 2010 to 2017 season article, each picking news article of that edition.
To be check for previous common name "Rome Masters" in older season. Matthew_hktc 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk: I'm sorry, but I can make no sense of what you write. It seems that English is not your first language. Please can you get some help somewhere to translate your comments into English? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I strike the cat 2000 to 2009 from the renaming discussion , as they seem most commonly known as "Rome Masters" at that time.[sic] (update: only for male version. 07:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)) So strike out them in order to settle in a separate discussion, which may cover to more relic edition in 1980s. Matthew_hktc 06:26, 20 April 2018 (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.
