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. If the target category is not ideally named, it could be nominated for renaming. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A long recent TfD regarding the associated templates resulted in a no consensus outcome, largely since many TfD participants didn't feel comfortable addressing what is more of an issue of categorization. The arguments for/against merging have already been made ad nauseum there, so check them out if you want. The core case is that a clear distinction between what makes a previous name "historic" vs. just "former" has not been articulated, nor has a rationale for why making such a distinction is necessary for developing the encyclopedia. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is between former names in real life (historic) versus former article titles in Wikipedia. But even if I am right, I wonder if editors who add redirects to the category understand it the same way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, based on the previous discussion and the fact that the historic names category is a subcategory of the former names category, I think it's definitely not understood that way. We have {{R from move}} for former page titles. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all historic names are "former" as English tends to continue usage of archaisms for many places (typically Latin-based names for Greek-language places; e.g., Alexandria for Alexandreia, Ephesus for Ephesos, etc.) So to say that Ephesos is a former name of Ephesus is not correct, but it is clearly a historic name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46, well, we can add that to the list as yet another interpretation of what these categories mean (and also one that isn't really supported by the current documentation or category tree structure). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, nominator is right that speculations about what these categories could mean are pretty useless. The distinction is unclear and therefore not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after looking at the history, and taking into account the comments by one of the creators. Amazingly enough, "historic" came before "former", then years later was made a subcategory. Or we could call them both Category:Redirects from earlier names per @Carlossuarez46: accuracy comment. William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2020 (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:Advocates of conspiracy theories involving Jews[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:rename per WP:C2C, aligning with parent Category:Conspiracy theorists and to have a more defining characteristic. "Advocate" may reflect a mere loose opinion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the proposed new name. It's the alleged conspiracies that involve Jews, not the conspiracy theorists, so "Conspiracy theorists involving Jews" is not grammatically correct. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point Marcocapelle, but Sdkb's right - the proposed name doesn't do it. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; the "involving" is sufficiently subjective to call it into question, but nearly all top Nazis drank the kool-aid (bad mixed metaphor) and would belong here. Most of these folks seem to be better known in other categories and their espousal of conspiracy theories of any sort is part and parcel with the groups they belonged to or led. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a fair point. People in this category are already defined as (Neo)Nazis, white supramicists or Islamists, and their views towards Jews are shaped by belonging to these groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find this to be on the same level as other activist/advocacy categories we have on Wikipedia. Those tend to be more broad, e.g. environmentalism or feminism; this could refer to only one or a few theories, not quite a field. Those who subscribe to more such theories tend to be, as has already been indicated, anti-Semitic in general anyway, and categorized as such. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the target almost makes it sound like the person recruited Jews to help them in what they did. The current name is clear enough. I am neutral on retaining the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already in enough related categories, doesn't aid navigation. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NONDEF (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF and already in enough related categories, doesn't aid navigation (W.A.Simpson). --Just N. (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2020 (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 per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete iff unpopulatable. I suspect some undercatting... Dambulla is a notable cricket venue and I've easily found a few more articles. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn after the categories have been populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2020 (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.
Delete but check that all appear in the correct national (or regional) church buildings category: "almost without exception" is not quite good enough to prevent articles being orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we even have articles on specific congregations? Dimadick (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2020 (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 per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now Obviously these places have had at least five mayors but they usually would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they ever reach 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (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:Postage stamps of the Republic of Ireland[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.
Oppose. The articles shouldn't be in both the category and directly in its parent, but that should be fixed by editing the articles. Deleting would (incorrectly) remove the articles from Category:Postage stamps. DexDor(talk) 19:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That the parent category needs diffusion, is not a reason to delete this one. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've diffused the parent category, so it should be ok now. Please check before closing. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (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: The creator obviously intended this category to be about the Soviet scientific organisations described in House of Scientists rather than buildings where scientists have lived, I've put a speedy on the parent article to rename it to Category:Houses of Scientists to make that clear. I know nothing about this subject but that article suggests there were less than 30 of these in the whole of the Soviet Union, which means we don't need to divide the parent into WP:SMALLCAT subdivisions of the USSR. Articles on any that survived the demise of the USSR can be tagged with eg Category:Scientific organisations based in Russia to capture the link to the modern country, along with Category:Houses of scientistsCategory:Houses of ScientistsLe Deluge (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct about the intention. The category is the same as the corresponding category in Russian. As I made this link from the Russian Wikipedia it will take a little while to update through Wikidata. I have also started Category:Houses of scientists in Ukraine, so far only populated with House of Scientists (Odessa), but is linked to the UKrainian and Russian wikipedias, where there are four institutions. It should also be noted that this is also linked to the relevant Commons Category within which 100s of photographs are organised. The equivalent category for Russia covers 10 institutions but organises only 150 photos. Whilst I can see the argument against starting a category for "Houses of scientists in Armenia" on the basis that there is only one, and that no longer functions. Bearing in mind the specific character of the Houses of scientists, having these two sub categories will prove extremely useful as we can rest assured that their population is principally a matter of time. As regards the guidelines offered in WP:SMALLCAT it is suggested that we avoid "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". So my argument is that there is such an accepted sub-categorization scheme on Russian Wikipedia and on Commons, and thus it would be wise to retain these subcategories for greater fluidity between these different wikipedia projects and greater coherence for Wikidata. Leutha (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, 3 categories (including Ukraine) for 3 articles is very unhelpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tiny category, and not placed in any category tree concerning Russia. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I have updated the target category, which was speedily renamed. – FayenaticLondon 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have also nominated the Ukrainian sibling category, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This appears to be a USSR-devised institution. The main article House of Scientists suggests there are a lot more that lack articles (as yet), though some have articles in Russian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2020 (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: The articles in the category are mostly articles about one or more species of animals (e.g. Cretoxyrhina and that some (or even all) of the fossils of the species/genus have been lost (e.g. mislaid, destroyed or stolen) is a non-defining characteristic of the species. Note: It's not entirely clear what the inclusion criteria for this category are intended to be (it's under Category:Lost specimens, but the inclusion criteria for that aren't clear either) - e.g. what if only part is lost? What if it's found? DexDor(talk) 11:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would have said keep if the category would have contained articles about individual fossils but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles cover the species, not individual fossils. Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm retired now. I thought it would be useful to be there a category contain all the species and genera that some of it's fossils (like Spinosaurus) or all of it (like Amphicoelias fragillimus, before it has been renamed to Maraapunisaurus) has been lost or destroyed. To avoid the issue of being a category for individual fossils, I propose to rename it to Category:Fossils with lost specimens. --Twilight Magic (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the articles in the current category (e.g. Homo erectus) would belong in the renamed category? DexDor(talk) 22:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check all of them. Actually I didn't add most of the articles in the category. But I don't think that the new name would make a difference. --Twilight Magic (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2020 (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: There are no people from the municipalities who are not people from the towns. The municipalities encompass neighbouring settlements, as I understand it, and of course some of the people said to be from towns may really be from somewhere outside, but the articles rarely mention that. NB there are hundreds of similar cases. If this is agreed they could be dealt with speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same rationale as before. There are historical reasons for keeping them separated. It would also disrupt the super-categories. This scheme helps. --Antondimak (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So please tell us about these historical reasons, and how it helps to have hundreds of empty categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no empty categories. The historical reasons I'm referring to are those I mentioned previously, how the modern municipalities (sort of like provinces) have only been dominated by their eponymous cities for a small part of their history. Most of these settlements (grouped into municipal units, the municipalities prior to the 2011 reform, which correspond more or less to what "municipalities" are in most countries) have been independent for most of their history. Now, when it comes to municipalities where there are only articles for people from a certain municipal unit, resulting in categories with only a single category as their member, then we could discuss merging them. However, this would disrupt the general structure and the supercategories, as well as make it harder to add new articles when they are made (as the process would have to be reversed). When it comes to municipalities where we have people from multiple municipal units between them, then the distinction is significant and I see no reason to merge them. --Antondimak (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When and if there are enough articles about people from a certain village, we can simply create a category for that village. That still does not require categorization by municipality. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just villages, most cities don't have their own municipality. --Antondimak (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it applies likewise to cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there is no point in distinguishing municipalities from towns and cities. They largely overlap, as these three examples clearly demonstrate. The first one can also be merged further to Category:People from West Attica per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All This is adding a category layer without a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Municipalities have always been dominated by their eponymous cities, all over the world, and there is no reason to suppose that the reorganisation of Greek local government will change that. Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has changed that. This was true prior to 2011, but since then a Greek "demos" although translated as "municipality" is equivalent to a kind of province, while a Greek "demotike enoteta", translated as "municipal unit", corresponds to what a "municipality" is in most countries. This is just a translation problem. --Antondimak (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the municipalities of Athens of Thessaloniki are the exception to this rule, as most remained unchanged in 2011. Fyli specifically changed, as it was merged with Ano Liosia and Zefyri. Still, you would never say that someone from Ano Liosia is from Fyli, just because the definition of a "demos" changed. --Antondimak (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the nomination attempts to achieve. There can be categories for people from Fyli, Ano Liosia and Zefyri each, provided they contain a decent number of articles (which is currently not the case). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What it tries to achieve is a very broad merger that would destroy the structure. In the cases where for some province there are only articles for people from a specific city, the two categories would be merged, with only the city category remaining (otherwise information would be lost). When navigating in this manner: People from Attica-->People from West Attica-->People from Fyli (municipality)-->People from Fyli, if the second to last category was lost it wouldn't make much of a difference. However when navigating in this manner: Greek people by location-->Category:People by municipality in Greece-->People from Fyli (municipality)-->People from Fyli, losing the second to last category would mean would be lost. Moreover, it is much easier to update the structure this way when new articles are added, since when we have articles about people from Ano Liosia, for example, a new category under People from Fyli (municipality) can be added, and not created at that point, modifying all the related super- and sub-categories accordingly. --Antondimak (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marcocapelle. Trying to subdivide the biography categories to match hundreds of small local government areas -which did not exist when the people were alive - is futile.Rathfelder (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been done though, and with a lot of research put into it. The names of the categories can be changed if that is a problem. What would be anachronistic is to categorise people according to recently created provinces, which weren't connected when they were alive, instead of by city. --Antondimak (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; along with Marcocapelle's comments. --Just N. (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2020 (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.
Delete per nom. It may be defining to some cases with an exceptional long period of being unidentified but it would become arbitrary where to draw the line. A list is more suitable, see List of formerly unidentified decedents. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both categories primarily include individuals whose remains were unidentified for a number of years (if not decades). In the instance of being unidentified for a shorter period of time, the case drew attention during that brief period of time (such as Bella Bond. These categories do not include those who were identified shortly after discovery. Nominator's rationale of "amazingly undefining" without additional elaboration comes off as WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT when the status of being unidentified after death is significantly rarer than the average "run-of-the-mill" murder, suicide, or another type of death. --GouramiWatcherTalk 02:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that they do not include those who were identified shortly after discovery? Could the title be reworded to make that clearer? Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the "decedent" category, all (except Phoenix Netts and Stephen Corrigan remained unidentified for at least four years, with the majority of cases remaining unsolved for twenty or more years. The same goes for the murder victim subcategory. Additionally, I've spent a tremendous amount of time researching and writing about this topic over the last seven years, and I'm familliar with the vast majority of the listed cases to know this. --GouramiWatcherTalk 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to think of a rename, around being identified later with DNA but that's routine now too. Lean Toward Delete but open to a more narrow scope but having trouble thinking of one that's not WP:ARBITRARYCAT (like 35+ years). - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many unidentified individuals become known to the public through the media in a considerably shorter amount of time. That doesn't make them less relevant to the categories. --GouramiWatcherTalk 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both A can't abide a short-term category for someone who was on the news and someone identified them the next morning. Sure, reliable sources described them as unknown but it wasn't a defining status. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both not defining temporary category. Many folks are transported to the OR/coroner and only identified later; that's not defining. It is also common phenomenon in multi-casualty disasters (plane crashes, tsunamis, serial killings). It also begs the question of "identified" by whom? If I identify a body as XXX have they been identified or does the identification need some officiality to be truly identified? In this age of folks not dying attended by people who know them, this is quite common. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, the categories were not created to include those who are identified through examination in a brief period of time. In response to the question regarding "by whom," the responsible parties are medical professionals (such as coroners/medical examiners) and detectives. Yes, disasters often do require efforts to identify those killed, yet the majority of these victims are not widely covered by media and known for their unidentified status. --GouramiWatcherTalk 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What they were created for isn't really relevant. It is what is within the scope of the categories as titled. Regardless of what is or isn't "widely covered by media", the vast number of redirects in these categories seem to indicate folks not themselves notable so also presumably not "widely covered by media". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these folks are not notable in their own right; they tend to have "Murder of X" articles that describe the circumstances of their demise. I've always been leery about personal categories being applied to articles like these, and these categories would describe someone involved with, maybe even central to, the topic of the article but would not describe the topic of the article itself. Even if we allow for that, I don't find "unidentified" attributes to be defining once the identity of the deceased is established. Looking at Category:Formerly unidentified murder victims directly, I find it almost entirely populated with redirects; only six are not, but of these only one is actually about the person in question. Of the remaining five, four should probably be moved to "Murder of X" titles since, again, their demise is the only noteworthy thing about them and is the thing on which most of the article's content is based. Most people are not going to notice the redirects and as such won't really benefit much from these categories being appended to them. I'm not really sure redirects need categorization beyond the technical categories used on the maintenance end of things anyway. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist(Speak quickly)(Follow my trail) 06:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of people are not identified when they are first found dead. This is not a thing that really matters enough to categorize on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually only 5 articles in the "Formerly unidentified murder victims category". One was identified the day after the body was found. Another appears to have been misidentified. The other 93 are all redirects. I dont think they should be in people categories. They should be in crimes. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2020 (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: Rename to follow standard naming convention of cateories for Roman gentes on Wikipedia. ★Trekker (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Grammatically incorrect. The proper title for this category was "Helvii", which is how it was titled from 2013 to 2020, when that title was taken over by a couple of obscure Gallic tribesmen. I fail to see how a masculine plural title with feminine singular disambiguation could be an improvement—it's as nonsensical as a category called "bulls (a male cow)". A potential solution would be to move the other category to "Helvii (Gallic tribe)", since there would be no disagreement in number or gender, and move this category back to its original title. But at least the current title is grammatically correct. P Aculeius (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean moving the category, not the article about the gens. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the category, of course. Do you agree? Avilich (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the present title is okay, but your suggestion is much better than the proposed title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the other categories in this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If other categories are misnamed, they should be fixed too, instead of creating more errors to match the ones that already exist. I also point out that hardly any of the categories for Roman gentiles require disambiguation—but insisting that the ones that have it be grammatically incorrect so that the root matches the form used by those that don't require disambiguation is formalism run amok. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I agree with the core intent here, which is to render the name plural as are all other gens-based categories. Since the argument about grammar is reasonably convincing, I'll reiterate here my support for moving Category:Helvia (gens) to Category:Helvii (Romans). Avilich (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal of Avilich above, as even Aculeius consented "suggestion is much better than the proposed title". -- Just N. (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2020 (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.
Comment -- most of these are named according to the station where they were based or the area where they served. Those named by type or function are slightly different. I am not sure that merger is quite the right solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge categories should not change when a name of a thing is changed. If the name changes of something, the categories it belongs in should remain the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (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. MER-C 15:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed this was for Catholic priests named "Alexander" but this category contains priests for the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander the Great so it's a worthwhile, defining category. The current naming comes from a term some academic sources do use because these priests have the years named after them, so the 2nd year of the reign of Agathocles of Egypt would be the "Agathocles 2", I guess, although the articles could use some clarification on exactly how this worked. The target name is theoretically broader but in practice more obscure priests are likely non-notable. As a lay reader, the current name is a jargon-y and the proposed name follows the closest thing we have to a main article to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, to resolve ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal as it stands. The article is not just about the priests, but about the cult as a whole. The priests are part of it. There is a technical term for these priests, and that is "eponymous priest". The purpose of an encyclopedia is to enlighten lay readers about technical terms, not to discard technical terms by paraphrasing them into something unrecognizable. I instead propose changing the name to "Eponymous priests of Alexander the Great", or "Ptolemaic eponymous priests of Alexander the Great", if ambiguity is a problem. Constantine ✍ 11:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both alternatives as still unclear. They weren't priests employed by Alexander the Great, they were priests of a cult. If Ptolemaic cult of Alexander the Great is not the technically correct term of the cult we have a WP:RM process to sort that out. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an experienced category editor, I was sincerely left wondering why you created a whole category for priests named after Alexander with no priests actually named "Alexander" and there was no Eponymous priest article to enlighten me. Both of the proposed alternate renames would have the same problem and appear to be for priests named after "Alexander the Great" rather than priests for his cult with various names who had years named after them. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer scope, and presumably we should include other priests of this cult. Dimadick (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. Unless someone can identify another Ptolemaic cult of Alexander we would need to disambiguate this one from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2020 (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.
