Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13

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

February 13[edit]

Establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary[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, but redirects from the old names will be useful for future reference and for category navigation. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it should also apply to century (11th to 19th) and decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if my reading of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 is correct, the Kingdom of Hungary was re-established in 1867 under the formal title of "Arch-Kingdom of Hungary" or the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen. If that's true, then we can rename the remaining establishment years of the 19th century and the early 20th century per above. Though for precision, we may wish to use, say, Category:1880 establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918). Just a thought. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubtful -- I do not oppose, but consider this completely unnecessary, because there was no Hungary at the time apart from Kingdom of Hungary, though its scope was rather greater than the present country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hungary unambiguously refers to the Kingdom of Hungary in the period considered, and the proposed nominations would break a coherent category structure. Borders and political regimes do change, but we cannot create an entire new chronology tree every time they do. See e.g. Chronology in Switzerland / Helvetic Republic for a precedent. Place Clichy (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not consider that precedent to be binding in this instance. The Swiss precedent was a case of duplication and brass nameplate changing. The underlying entities were the same. It's not the same for the Kingdom of Hungary and the modern republic which is only a tenth the size of the kingdom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changing vote) Keep -- for reasons stated above. There is no need to plant a new tree every time a country changes its borders or constitutional status. I made a neutral vote above (accepting the proposal with doubts). The fluctuations in the border as the Ottoman Empire grew and then retreated did not mean that there was not continuously a polity called Hungary; and there still is. In the same way the English Parliament did not cease to exist in 1707; it admitted Scottish members and became the British Parliament, with no substantive change in its operation, except a greater jurisdiction. The same applies to the Church of England, which was reformed (not created) in the 1530s. Hungary has had a continuous existence since 895 AD, though its boundaries have periodically grown or shrunk. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the province of Lazio? Is it in Italy or Vatican City (as the Papal States are now known)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This goes well beyond "every time a country changes its borders or constitution" the Kingdom of Hungary was something like 4 times as big as the modern nation, including parts of at least 6 modern countries. The change is very significant, and using the current names and links to articles on the current country is used as reason to perpetuate establishment categories that refer to a place that had no seperate political identify within the Kingdom of Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What @Peterkingiron: wrote above is incorrect. The parliament was formally abolished by the act of union; the Scottish members did not simply join the English parliament. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename all — although the current country of a similar name exists, better to distinguish in historical context, as we have with so many others (Russia versus Russian Empire being most prominent lately). I'd have closed Rename, but the most recent !votes have been changing. There has been no activity for weeks, so better to refresh, and put a nail in it.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Over the centuries, the borders of Hungary have waxed and waned, due to encroachment by the Turks and then reconquest, with fragmentation as part of the WWI peace treaties. At the core of this is a single country, Hungary, subject to different rulers and governmental arrangements at different times. There is no need to split these. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the accidental close. I think I reverted everything so it should be as it was before. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2021 (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:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany[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. There is clear consensus to get rid of the present category. There is also some support for having another category, and Category:Universities and colleges in the German Empire would be similar to others, so this close is no bar to creating that or something like it. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. @Good Olfactory and Timrollpickering:: courtesy pinging contributors involved in a previous merge attempt. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the previous one? Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See page history. Place Clichy (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The one is specifically for institutions that were in what used to be Germany but no longer is. This is about the loss of German status to the area, which is a very different issue than just closing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Contrary to Johnpacklambert, the contents appear to include universities located in Nuremburg and Ingolstadt which last I checked were still part of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "Breslau", with two entries, is now in Poland! And one of them is still going strong. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so if this were universities formerly in Germany, it would include Breslau (and all Austrian universities functioning from 1938-1945) but exclude Ingolstadt, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again the bullshit myth! Why do we have so many hundreds of medieval and Early Modern "German" categories then? You need to get your head round the difference between political states and geographical regions. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using modern states to define geographical areas, but I cant see it as very helpful to look back to where the boundaries used to be when we are categorising institutions which exist now. Especially when the boundaries moved so much. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A lot of these articles refer to places that were indisputable part of Germany between 1918-1939, and are indisputable not part of Germany today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly the reason I proposed a split. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not precisely correct: out of the 12 articles in the category (not counting redirects), 10 are in present-day Germany. About the others, such as the University of Königsberg (1544-1945), the fact that it was in Germany (in this case, Prussia) for its entire existence is more defining than the loss of German status of the area, whatever that means, or the present country where this city is (Russia). This notion of historical Germany is not a very efficient or defining way to describe these institutions, and has not proven useful. The very notion of lost territories of Germany is also irredentist (and therefore nationalist) and subjective. Why not consider areas like the Low Countries, Bohemia, most of Switzerland which were also part of Germany for centuries? Are the universities of Amsterdam, Leuven, Basel or Prague historically German? It is more defining to categorize these institutions by the actual country in which they were, e.g. Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Place Clichy (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is factually incorrect, Königsberg was not part of the Holy Roman Empire when the university was established and long after, Prussia was nominally a fief of Poland at the time. It was part of the (second) German Empire though. This confirms that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is correct, that's why both the article and the eponymous category are in Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. We seem to agree that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable. Amsterdam, Basel, Vienna or Prague (the German capital at the time of Charles IV) probably just as well belong to historical Germany, and using this term as a periphrasis for territories lost by Germany after 1945 carries a certain POV. Place Clichy (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As long as they are extant, I see no real utility to categorizing universities by former countries/empires. Categorization by current country is sufficient. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is Merge per nom. The German universities of Breslau and Königsberg became defunct in 1945 before being replaced by Polish and Russian institutions. TSventon (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2021 (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:FT-Class articles[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. I did as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing deletion. This cat seems to have been created to support Category:FT-Class London Transport articles but is utterly pointless since no other Wikiprojects have "FT-Class artices". Aza24 (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2021 (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:Destroyed individual trees[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem to be duplicate in scope. The target category is more populated (including those in subcategories). JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: be careful with the latter, an earlier mass nomination failed because of the existance of locally "assigned" landmarks, occurring mostly in the US and Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2021 (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:Plantain-eaters[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; also overwrite history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a duplicate of the newly-created Category:Crinifer. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantain-eater. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (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:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by city[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/merge. As mentioned, it can be difficult to assess categories like this mid-pandemic. Opinions may well change as we go forward, so we shouldn't be too harsh with restricting non-immediate re-creation of these categories, but they certainly should be discussed if re-created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the consensus established at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by city, we do not need to categorize deaths from the current pandemic by city. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per precedent and per WP:OCLOCATION. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and comment If we're upmerging the Madrid category to the Spain one, then the Milan category should be upmerged to the top-level Italy one too. There's no need for all these Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy by region sub-cats with a handful of articles in each. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is a destructive nom. If a category has at least 5 members it should be allowed to exist. Removing Wuhan is particularly obnoxious since that is where the pandemic started. However Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain by city is an unnecessary layer as the city categroies can go immediately under Spain. London has 22 articles; (the rest of) England another 47. Both these are quite large enough to keep (apart). It is fine to upmerge small categories, but we should keep anything larger. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the local geography cats bump up against smallcat but there can also be situations where the locality isn't meaningful, say demolished buildings by riding/congressional district/constituency. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Future Noms It's hard for me to assess the need for these breakdowns mid-pandemic. Any outcome here should be subject to new noms sooner than most decisions at CFD since the subject matter is in flux. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of these seem to have sufficient content to retain under normal breakdowns (see, e.g., Category:Artists by city or town). I have often heard that 5 articles is the norm for retention, although I haven't seen that in policy. WP:SMALLCAT even permits 1 page categories. I'd like to know why this differs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is splitting things too much. This leads to more categories than is useful, and hinders navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete as nominated. Contents have proven to be frequently incorrect. Many cities/counties have counts that are really from elsewhere, as they have superior hospital facilities. And we know that certain kinds were deliberately miscounted to avoid legal liability.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (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:Africa women's national association football teams[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not used category. Sangjinhwa (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2021 (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:Cardinals by country[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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misguided attempt to duplicate Category:Cardinals by nationality. Only content apart from the two subcategories below is Category:Lists of cardinals by country, which clearly dont belong according to the blurb, which says, for example: "This is a list of cardinals of the Catholic Church from England. It does not include cardinals of non-English national origin appointed to English ecclesiastical offices such as the cardinal protectors of England." and "This list includes all ethnic Poles, living and deceased, who were raised to the rank of cardinal". Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. They are all Australian. Rathfelder (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. They are all Irish nationals. Rathfelder (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, one is not cardinal of (a part of) a country, it is a personal title. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is necessary. While it true to say that all Irish cardinals are Irish nationals, it is not true that all Irish cardinals were cardinals in Ireland. Ireland has a long history of giving prelates to the world. These people usually spent their entire episcopate, and their cardinalate, in their adoptive country. See, for example, John Murphy Farley. To @Marcocapelle: I would point out that the current category is not Category:Cardinals of Ireland, it is Category:Cardinals in Ireland. If a cardinal is normally resident in Ireland then he is a "Cardinal in Ireland". This is especially true as most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit. Irish nationals, on the other hand, can go wherever the Spirit moves them to go. The same is true in the Australian case where Edward Cassidy is an Australian national yet has spent his cardinalate in the Holy See. The scope of Category:Cardinals by country couldn't be clearer: "Cardinals of the Catholic Church who serve or have served in that office in a particular country, regardless of nationality. See Category:Cardinals by nationality for individuals by nationality who were created cardinals, regardless of where they served.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is completely untrue that "most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit." There are probably more cardinals who served as diplomats, officers of the Papal See etc than those who served in particular areas. The diplomats often served in many countries. This has varied over time. Categorisation of clergy needs to take a long view. Rathfelder (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if they are cardinal as well as bishop of a diocese (which happens a lot too) they are already in a country category as a bishop. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this is about nationality, there is no difference since the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish and British nationality. However, the Catholic Church is quite capable of appointing an Englishman or an American to an Irish archbishopric, though I suspect that does not happen much these days. I suspect that in theory the Cardinals are the chapter of St Peters Basilica in Rome, but Cardinals ministering in Ireland might be an appropriate way of defining the scope of Category:Cardinals in Ireland. There has indeed been a long tradition of Ireland exporting clergy to serve elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make more sense to have categories of expatriate cardinals, as we do with footballers, than for cardinals in their native land. Rathfelder (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion cardinals are personal titles and are not cardinals of or in any particular place. Some places may have numerous cardinals, others none. Cardinals are called to the Vatican for long stretches, but I wouldn't want to label those as "expatriate cardinals" as some probably attend to matters "back home". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query If this category is deleted, what is to happen to John Murphy Farley? He is currently categorised as an Irish cardinal and an American cardinal. Both can't be true. Do we need a new Category:Cardinals of Irish descent ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • since Farley emigrated to the US at age 22, and did not even the priesthood until he was over 25, the answer to that question has no relevance to this discussion. However I can cite hundreds of cases where we categorize people by situations that only applied to them post-emigration. It would take a major revision of how immigrants are categorized to remove all of these. The entire contents of Cuban Latter Day Saints are people who converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after emigrating to the United States, so I could see elimanating it. The answer to the question on Farley is not affected by this discussion one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that it does not matter for this category discussion. Anyway, if hypothetically he might have been cardinal in Ireland, then in the United States, it would have been perfectly valid to put him in both categories. With his actual history, having him in the American subcategory should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the distinction between country served in/country of nationality makes sense for bishops and archbishops, who have a specific area severed in. It does not make sense for Cardinals, who hold office connected to the Church as a whole, not to a specific area. Unless we are ready to create Cardinals in Italy and include all non-Italians who held various appointments with the central organization of the Catholic Church. We do not want to go that route.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2021 (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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Carol I[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category Category:Recipients of the Order of Carol I was deleted two weeks ago after a CfD, but somehow this one was not included. Same applies though - it's a courtesy award for various foreign royals etc when they visited Romania. Le Deluge (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2021 (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:Labels distributed by Universal Records[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining characteristic. Distribution, in the music business, is simply a matter of what company's infrastructure is used behind the scenes to deliver the music from the label's offices into the retail stores or online platforms where it's sold -- so record labels aren't particularly defined by who their distributors happen to be, because it has no discernible effect on how the music is actually purchased or consumed by the listener. And while there are a few other parallel categories for distribution conglomerates, they're all much more populated than this -- and they're also of questionable necessity, as there's certainly no comprehensive scheme of always categorizing record labels for the matter of who they happen to have distribution contracts with. If the label isn't an outright subsidiary of Universal, then it doesn't need Universal-related categorization at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2021 (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:Manaus Futebol Clube managers[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now category name is in Spanish CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2021 (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.

People from Chalkidiki[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns. In this case there aren't any of those exceptions, even the capital Polygyros has only 7,500 people and three articles in Category:People from Polygyros. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Very small cats unliekly to aid navigation. No objection to recreating any if they ever get up to 5+ articles though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2021 (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.

People from Chania (regional unit)[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, except no consensus to merge Category:People from Kissamos. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Chania (108,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kissamos is a quite notable town, and the category currently has 4 members. There are some more articles about people from Kissamos already in the Greek Wikipedia, and this one I will be probably translating soon. Therefore there is a concrete reason to believe the category has potential for growth, and there should probably be kept per WP:SMALLCAT. --Antondimak (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start — Should be targeting at least one million population. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most for Now/Oppose Apokoronas and Kissamos These small cats hinder navigation, but no objection to recreating any if they get up to 5+ articles. Category:People from Apokoronas is already at 5 (assuming the subcats are alternatively merged) and keep Category:People from Kissamos per Antondimak above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2021 (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.

People from Corinthia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Corinth (38,000 people), Sikyona (19,000 people) and Xylokastro (6,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but noticing some contradictions on size -- Xylokastro is quoted as smaller than Polygyros, which is to be merged in the first-listed of these noms. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygyros is indeed larger and is actually the capital of the entire prefecture. However it currently has 3 articles and we have taken the "pessimistic" approach of not assuming growth in these nominations. --Antondimak (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start — Should be targeting at least one million population. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All for Now These small categories and extra layers hinder navigation. No objection to recreating any if they ever get to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2021 (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/2021_February_13&oldid=1080818360"