December 26
Category:Wire (band)
- 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- The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Bearcat ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT violation as an eponymous category for a band that doesn't have enough spinoff content to require one; the only content filed in it at present is the band's main article, their albums category and an .ogg file. Main article and navbox template are already sufficient for navigational purposes. Bearcat ( talk) 23:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – there were several subcats drifting around looking for a parent, now found. Oculi ( talk) 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Several subcats. Legitimate for navigation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Withdrawn per rescue. Bearcat ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (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:American covers musical groups
- 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, without prejudice for recreating this category if the target does get to be too big.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American covers musical groups to Category:Cover bands
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Diffusion by nationality seems unnecessary per WP:SMALLCAT; naming to match cover band article and the similar Category:Tribute bands. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- rename per nom -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: But "Cat:Cover bands" could be populated quite a lot, given the large number of articles on bands around the world. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to split them. Now, it may be more interesting to do the split by genre than by country. I mean, it's more likely that someone wants to know metal or jazz cover bands, than whihc of the French bands do covers. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- support It's possible that the new category name, fully populated, could be split out again, but it would then make sense as container category. The current name is incomprehensible. Seyasirt ( talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (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:NN Serpentis
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There's only one object in this category, and that is the star article itself. No reason to have this as a separate category considering that there are not likely ever going to be any other additions.
StringTheory11 (
t •
c)
19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I'm the creator and I created it inadvertently, believing there to be more pages that would be under this category due to the links NN Serpentis b and NN Serpentis c that are in the NN Serpentis article but just redirect back to it. -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete looks like the creator is ok with it.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (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:Total Drama Island
- 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.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Total Drama Island to Category:Total Drama
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with this series, but the category appears to be for the entire series ( Total Drama) despite being named for its first season ( Total Drama Island). BDD ( talk) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:33, 3 January 2014 (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:Universities and colleges by year of establishment
- 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:Educational institutions by year of establishment. Taking both debates as a whole and individually, there is evident consensus for this upmerge. -
Splash -
tk
22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, looking in here there is only one member, the subcategory Category:Universities established in 1987 which is already in Educational institutions established in 1987. So it seems better to just delete this category (maybe the merge has taken place editorially since the nomination?). Splash - tk 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Nominating per below suggestion. So the question is -- both here and for the "Universities established in 1987" rename nom directly below -- are we ready to split off universities and colleges from other educational institutions in the year of establishment tree? Does that aid navigation or not? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete. No, we don't need to split this off. Educational institutions is plenty granular, and already well developed.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and populate Picking Category:Educational institutions established in 1922 (and looking a few years in either direction) shows a rather motley assortment of elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities all lumped together, a pattern of about 175 institutions each year lumped together with nothing in common other than a year of establishment. Nothing in Wikipedia is needed, but splitting off colleges and universities allows all post-secondary schools to be grouped together and navigated more effectively and to be integrated into the overall parent Category:Universities and colleges, with which it is now totally disconnected. A few hours in AWB should allow all of the needed restructuring to be completed for the benefit of Wikipedia. Alansohn ( talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Especially once you get to earlier years (eg pre 19th century), where there are very few grammar schools established, this just adds an additional, and unneeded, layer of navigation.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fine with me. For the 200+ years since 1800, during which time 98% of educational institutions have been established, it would be a significant aid to navigation and separate a rather sundry laundry list of schools of varying types into a much better focused and organized grouping. The tremendous benefit of integration into the structure in the parent
Category:Universities and colleges far outweighs the "bah, humbug" argument of "unneeded", which is always unneeded and arbitrary. After all, other than food, water and oxygen, nothing is needed.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a sundry list - and even if we pulled out the universities, the result would still be sundry. I'm a strong believer that less is more in categorization - and I think new far reaching schemes as this should be analyzed carefully as to their costs and benefits. To me the cost of creating and maintaining hundreds of more categories, and the need for constant monitoring and diffusion of the parent cat outweighs the benefit to the reader. We can easily link to this education category-by-year from the university category as a see also.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- How can it not be sundry at all but still be sundry if a clearly defined subset is shifted into a subcategory? Is that the same kind of CFD logic that argues for deletion of a category is both overbroad and too narrow? We could just create
Category:Stuff and take the "less is more in categorization" approach to its logical endpoint and just put every article into that one category; no maintenance, no fuss, no muss, no need for CfD. We have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of categories and getting rid of them en masse would solve the problem of maintaining these categories. The problem is that your arguments are great reasons to dismantle the entire categorization system, not to delete only this particular structure and keep all of the others. As of now, the entire structure of
Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment is completely disconnected from the structure of
Category:Universities and colleges, and the scheme of organization by universities and colleges is so well-designed, structured and thought-out, and hardly so "far-reaching" that we need to re-evaluate the laundry list of educational institutions. A "see also" won't address the non-integration into the parent
Category:Universities and colleges, while a structure of
Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment will better integrate content across the structures. It's easy enough to distinguish universities and colleges from the haystack of educational institutions and the time needed to create and maintain these categories is trivial while the benefit is significant in terms of cross-categorization. I'll be more than happy to volunteer to handle the task, if that's the only outstanding issue.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this one but I do agree with Alansohn on the "See also" point, that is, if I understand Obiwankenobi's suggestion correctly. This isn't a {{catrel}} situation, it's either a subcategory or it goes.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- the catrel would be for educational institutions by year of creation - thus keeping the per year cats to a broader definition - it could be easily linked as a catrel from relevant university cats.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alan, as to your other points, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not buying the slippery slope, but I do think we need to consider maintainability here and convenience for the user. Users have not had difficulty in populating the existing tree, so creating a new nested sub tree adds a lot of complication without a lot of benefit. My point about sundry was that I don't consider it sundry - but if a collection of education institutions is sundry, then removing universities means the parent will still be sundry - so if sundry is the problem you haven't solved it by sub categorizing.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this one but I do agree with Alansohn on the "See also" point, that is, if I understand Obiwankenobi's suggestion correctly. This isn't a {{catrel}} situation, it's either a subcategory or it goes.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- How can it not be sundry at all but still be sundry if a clearly defined subset is shifted into a subcategory? Is that the same kind of CFD logic that argues for deletion of a category is both overbroad and too narrow? We could just create
Category:Stuff and take the "less is more in categorization" approach to its logical endpoint and just put every article into that one category; no maintenance, no fuss, no muss, no need for CfD. We have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of categories and getting rid of them en masse would solve the problem of maintaining these categories. The problem is that your arguments are great reasons to dismantle the entire categorization system, not to delete only this particular structure and keep all of the others. As of now, the entire structure of
Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment is completely disconnected from the structure of
Category:Universities and colleges, and the scheme of organization by universities and colleges is so well-designed, structured and thought-out, and hardly so "far-reaching" that we need to re-evaluate the laundry list of educational institutions. A "see also" won't address the non-integration into the parent
Category:Universities and colleges, while a structure of
Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment will better integrate content across the structures. It's easy enough to distinguish universities and colleges from the haystack of educational institutions and the time needed to create and maintain these categories is trivial while the benefit is significant in terms of cross-categorization. I'll be more than happy to volunteer to handle the task, if that's the only outstanding issue.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a sundry list - and even if we pulled out the universities, the result would still be sundry. I'm a strong believer that less is more in categorization - and I think new far reaching schemes as this should be analyzed carefully as to their costs and benefits. To me the cost of creating and maintaining hundreds of more categories, and the need for constant monitoring and diffusion of the parent cat outweighs the benefit to the reader. We can easily link to this education category-by-year from the university category as a see also.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fine with me. For the 200+ years since 1800, during which time 98% of educational institutions have been established, it would be a significant aid to navigation and separate a rather sundry laundry list of schools of varying types into a much better focused and organized grouping. The tremendous benefit of integration into the structure in the parent
Category:Universities and colleges far outweighs the "bah, humbug" argument of "unneeded", which is always unneeded and arbitrary. After all, other than food, water and oxygen, nothing is needed.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Especially once you get to earlier years (eg pre 19th century), where there are very few grammar schools established, this just adds an additional, and unneeded, layer of navigation.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge since if we do not places like Brigham Young University will get put in multiple establishment categories. Educational institutions is an easy to define and broad name, this is a compound name, the exact extent of which will be complex, since at least half the things in Britain called "college" do not belong as "universities and colleges", and would we put The University of Pittsburgh College of Engineering in a sub-cat here, or is that not a college as used here? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge. The discussion below seems to be moving to a consensus that supports the upmerge here. The two discussions should not be closed in different ways. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (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:Universities established in 1987
- 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:Educational institutions established in 1987. Taking both debates as a whole and individually, there is evident consensus for this upmerge.- Splash - tk 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This happens to be another one from Ottawahitech. There's an obvious X of Y fix that I perhaps could have taken care of at WP:CFDS. But I also want to call attention that this is presently the only subcat of his recently created Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment, an otherwise unpopulated offshoot of the well established Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment. So I suppose this could also be a discussion about whether that large category system is ready for diffusion, and under what name? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete this one, and the parent. Category:Educational_institutions_by_year_of_establishment is well populated, and especially given that the majority of entities that merit an article here are likely to be universities, we don't need to create a whole separate tree just for universities and colleges to separate them away from the broader "Educational insitutions". Shawn, are you ok with nominating the parent of this cat as well to discuss both at the same time?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. On it right now. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Surely the proposed title should be Category:Universities and colleges established in 1987. -- BDD ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Corrected. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Educational institutions established in 1987. The educational institutions name avoids dealing with the complexities of whether universities or universities and colleges is the better term. Also, if we created this as a common tree, we would end up with the issue of what category to put Brigham Young University. It insists on an 1875 founding date, and has been in constant operation from that year, but it was not by any definition a university or college then, it was basically a high school. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Educational institutions established in 1987 per JPL, to avoid arguments about how to categorise the many universities which started off as lesser institutions. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The same issues would come up with Morehouse College and many other HBCUs. Many colleges that started as all-women's institutions also started at the high school level. The more one knows about the history of education in the US, the harder it is to make this split work before 1900. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge per JPL. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (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:Brunonen Dynasty
- 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: no consensus. There is clearly disagreement about whether the head article is named correctly, and although no RM discussion has been opened, some references have been posted at Talk:Brunonids#Some_sources. I encourage interested editors to try to reach a consensus on the most appropriate name for the head article, and to feel free to open a fresh CFD nomination when that process has run its course.(Pinging CFD participants: Srnec, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Peterkingiron). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Brunonen Dynasty to Category:Brunonids
- Nominator's rationale: The article was moved by me to an English, because the German "Brunonen" causes problems when people don't realise what it is. It can't be used as an adjective (that would be Brunoner). Srnec ( talk) 17:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- speedy rename - you can make this a speedy to match head article.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- I am far from convinced that the article on the descendants of Brun, Duke of Saxony is correctly anglicised from Brunonen to Brunonid. I note a cognate case has become Ottonian and wonder whether the article and category ought not to be Brunonian dynasty and Category:Brunonian dynasty. I note that the article only has German sources, so that there must be a question as to what the correct English is. Can the nom, please cite some English sources? Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you think the article is at the wrong place you should propose a move there...-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:06, 31 December 2013 (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:Woman bishops
- 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 both into
Category:Women bishops.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Woman bishops to Category:Female bishops
- Nominator's rationale: merge this newly-created (yesterday) category to the pre-existing Category:Female bishops, which was created in 2007.
- The use of "female" rather than "woman" aligns with the parents ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Female religious leaders and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Female Christian clergy and religious.
- If the merger proceeds, Category:Woman bishops should be recreated as a {{ category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- merge per nom - and trout to the creator for having yet again created a duplicate of a gendered category. Please search more carefully - category creation is incredibly cheap and easy, but deleting/merging wastes a week of time.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
14:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The creator was
User:Ottawahitech, who also created several other categories which are currently being discussed at at CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- for those interested some of "my" categories which have recently been nominated for Deletion are listed at: User:Ottawahitech#.22my.22_categories. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The creator was
User:Ottawahitech, who also created several other categories which are currently being discussed at at CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge; no good reason to have two separate categories for this topic. Nyttend ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Merge or reverse merge-- They are obviously the same thing. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)- Reverse merge Bishops are adults, and woman is the preferred term for an adult. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: There's a clear consensus to merge. However, the consensus on which direction isn't completely clear; and the nominated target hasn't been tagged.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom – if Ottawahitech wants a different name, start a cfd rather than create a duplicate (and it should be 'women', not 'woman', per everything in Category:Women by occupation except creations of Ottawahitech). Oculi ( talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- create category
Category:Women bishops and merge both into it. This is the only reasonable name to describe the contents.
Hmains (
talk)
03:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmains is right, I had not noticed that as it exists this category is not properly pluralized. Still, women is the better title for a category that will include only adults. See for example Category:Women judges. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Hmains -- This is a good solution. Woman bishops is grammatically incorrect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Category:Women bishops is grammatically better than "woman" ... but the parent categories both use "female". It seems to me to to be best to retain consistency with the immediate parents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Hmains best Johnbod ( talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (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:Mongol peoples
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Mongol peoples to Category:Mongols
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Mongol peoples and Category:Mongols are same : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Merge_categories 182.160.3.119 ( talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- oppose The mongol peoples category contains sub-groups of Mongols, and as such is a useful set category as separate from the topic category of Mongols.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- keep as it Obi-Wan Kenobi is quite correct in his assessment of the situation. Hmains ( talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I can manually reorganize related subgroups and pages, it is not difficult. 182.160.4.162 ( talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per OWK. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are three categories: Category:Mongolian people, Category:Mongol peoples , Category:Mongols. Category:Mongolian people and Category:Mongols are the main categories. Why do we need to have 3 categories? 182.160.9.184 ( talk) 08:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Mongolian people is a set category, meant to contain actual people. Category:Mongols is a topic category, meant to contain topical information about mongols, including various tribes, kingdoms, etc. Category:Mongol peoples is intended to hold not people, but peoples - e.g. ethnic groupings of mongols. Since we have a good deal of them, a subcat is reasonable.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- Category:Mongolian people is for individual bio-articles. The other two are similar in content. We may need to make a distinction between articles relating to the people of Mongolia (formerly Outer Mongolia) and those about wider subjects about ethnic Mongols. If someone can write adequate headnotes to define these as distinct subjects and to sort the articles between the two, I can see a case for keeping two general categories, but I am not currently convinced that the two are currently adequately distinct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are 7 subcategories, we can use these 7 subcategories instead of Category:Mongol people: Category:Southern Mongols, Category:Khalkha, Category:People from Inner Mongolia, Category:Buryat people, Category:Khitans Category:Oirats, Category:Dongxiang people 182.160.6.151 ( talk) 12:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Mongolian Wikipedians don't resist the merging, we don't need to have 2 similar categories. Wikipedia must be constructive : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Merge_categories
Category:Barlas, Category:Mongolian tribes and clans, Category:Xianbei, Category:Xiongnu, Category:Khitans, Category:Golden Horde, Category:Ilkhnate, Category:Chagatai khans, Category:Rouran, Mongol Empire people, Category:Yuan Dynasty people Category:People of the Ilkhanate 182.160.32.228 ( talk) 10:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per OWK. Johnbod ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2014 (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.
December 26
Category:Wire (band)
- 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: nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Bearcat ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT violation as an eponymous category for a band that doesn't have enough spinoff content to require one; the only content filed in it at present is the band's main article, their albums category and an .ogg file. Main article and navbox template are already sufficient for navigational purposes. Bearcat ( talk) 23:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – there were several subcats drifting around looking for a parent, now found. Oculi ( talk) 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Several subcats. Legitimate for navigation. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Withdrawn per rescue. Bearcat ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (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:American covers musical groups
- 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, without prejudice for recreating this category if the target does get to be too big.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American covers musical groups to Category:Cover bands
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Diffusion by nationality seems unnecessary per WP:SMALLCAT; naming to match cover band article and the similar Category:Tribute bands. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- rename per nom -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: But "Cat:Cover bands" could be populated quite a lot, given the large number of articles on bands around the world. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to split them. Now, it may be more interesting to do the split by genre than by country. I mean, it's more likely that someone wants to know metal or jazz cover bands, than whihc of the French bands do covers. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- support It's possible that the new category name, fully populated, could be split out again, but it would then make sense as container category. The current name is incomprehensible. Seyasirt ( talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (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:NN Serpentis
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There's only one object in this category, and that is the star article itself. No reason to have this as a separate category considering that there are not likely ever going to be any other additions.
StringTheory11 (
t •
c)
19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I'm the creator and I created it inadvertently, believing there to be more pages that would be under this category due to the links NN Serpentis b and NN Serpentis c that are in the NN Serpentis article but just redirect back to it. -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete looks like the creator is ok with it.-- Lenticel ( talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (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:Total Drama Island
- 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.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Total Drama Island to Category:Total Drama
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with this series, but the category appears to be for the entire series ( Total Drama) despite being named for its first season ( Total Drama Island). BDD ( talk) 19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:33, 3 January 2014 (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:Universities and colleges by year of establishment
- 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:Educational institutions by year of establishment. Taking both debates as a whole and individually, there is evident consensus for this upmerge. -
Splash -
tk
22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, looking in here there is only one member, the subcategory Category:Universities established in 1987 which is already in Educational institutions established in 1987. So it seems better to just delete this category (maybe the merge has taken place editorially since the nomination?). Splash - tk 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Nominating per below suggestion. So the question is -- both here and for the "Universities established in 1987" rename nom directly below -- are we ready to split off universities and colleges from other educational institutions in the year of establishment tree? Does that aid navigation or not? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete. No, we don't need to split this off. Educational institutions is plenty granular, and already well developed.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and populate Picking Category:Educational institutions established in 1922 (and looking a few years in either direction) shows a rather motley assortment of elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities all lumped together, a pattern of about 175 institutions each year lumped together with nothing in common other than a year of establishment. Nothing in Wikipedia is needed, but splitting off colleges and universities allows all post-secondary schools to be grouped together and navigated more effectively and to be integrated into the overall parent Category:Universities and colleges, with which it is now totally disconnected. A few hours in AWB should allow all of the needed restructuring to be completed for the benefit of Wikipedia. Alansohn ( talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Especially once you get to earlier years (eg pre 19th century), where there are very few grammar schools established, this just adds an additional, and unneeded, layer of navigation.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fine with me. For the 200+ years since 1800, during which time 98% of educational institutions have been established, it would be a significant aid to navigation and separate a rather sundry laundry list of schools of varying types into a much better focused and organized grouping. The tremendous benefit of integration into the structure in the parent
Category:Universities and colleges far outweighs the "bah, humbug" argument of "unneeded", which is always unneeded and arbitrary. After all, other than food, water and oxygen, nothing is needed.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a sundry list - and even if we pulled out the universities, the result would still be sundry. I'm a strong believer that less is more in categorization - and I think new far reaching schemes as this should be analyzed carefully as to their costs and benefits. To me the cost of creating and maintaining hundreds of more categories, and the need for constant monitoring and diffusion of the parent cat outweighs the benefit to the reader. We can easily link to this education category-by-year from the university category as a see also.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- How can it not be sundry at all but still be sundry if a clearly defined subset is shifted into a subcategory? Is that the same kind of CFD logic that argues for deletion of a category is both overbroad and too narrow? We could just create
Category:Stuff and take the "less is more in categorization" approach to its logical endpoint and just put every article into that one category; no maintenance, no fuss, no muss, no need for CfD. We have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of categories and getting rid of them en masse would solve the problem of maintaining these categories. The problem is that your arguments are great reasons to dismantle the entire categorization system, not to delete only this particular structure and keep all of the others. As of now, the entire structure of
Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment is completely disconnected from the structure of
Category:Universities and colleges, and the scheme of organization by universities and colleges is so well-designed, structured and thought-out, and hardly so "far-reaching" that we need to re-evaluate the laundry list of educational institutions. A "see also" won't address the non-integration into the parent
Category:Universities and colleges, while a structure of
Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment will better integrate content across the structures. It's easy enough to distinguish universities and colleges from the haystack of educational institutions and the time needed to create and maintain these categories is trivial while the benefit is significant in terms of cross-categorization. I'll be more than happy to volunteer to handle the task, if that's the only outstanding issue.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this one but I do agree with Alansohn on the "See also" point, that is, if I understand Obiwankenobi's suggestion correctly. This isn't a {{catrel}} situation, it's either a subcategory or it goes.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- the catrel would be for educational institutions by year of creation - thus keeping the per year cats to a broader definition - it could be easily linked as a catrel from relevant university cats.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 07:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alan, as to your other points, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not buying the slippery slope, but I do think we need to consider maintainability here and convenience for the user. Users have not had difficulty in populating the existing tree, so creating a new nested sub tree adds a lot of complication without a lot of benefit. My point about sundry was that I don't consider it sundry - but if a collection of education institutions is sundry, then removing universities means the parent will still be sundry - so if sundry is the problem you haven't solved it by sub categorizing.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this one but I do agree with Alansohn on the "See also" point, that is, if I understand Obiwankenobi's suggestion correctly. This isn't a {{catrel}} situation, it's either a subcategory or it goes.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- How can it not be sundry at all but still be sundry if a clearly defined subset is shifted into a subcategory? Is that the same kind of CFD logic that argues for deletion of a category is both overbroad and too narrow? We could just create
Category:Stuff and take the "less is more in categorization" approach to its logical endpoint and just put every article into that one category; no maintenance, no fuss, no muss, no need for CfD. We have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of categories and getting rid of them en masse would solve the problem of maintaining these categories. The problem is that your arguments are great reasons to dismantle the entire categorization system, not to delete only this particular structure and keep all of the others. As of now, the entire structure of
Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment is completely disconnected from the structure of
Category:Universities and colleges, and the scheme of organization by universities and colleges is so well-designed, structured and thought-out, and hardly so "far-reaching" that we need to re-evaluate the laundry list of educational institutions. A "see also" won't address the non-integration into the parent
Category:Universities and colleges, while a structure of
Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment will better integrate content across the structures. It's easy enough to distinguish universities and colleges from the haystack of educational institutions and the time needed to create and maintain these categories is trivial while the benefit is significant in terms of cross-categorization. I'll be more than happy to volunteer to handle the task, if that's the only outstanding issue.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a sundry list - and even if we pulled out the universities, the result would still be sundry. I'm a strong believer that less is more in categorization - and I think new far reaching schemes as this should be analyzed carefully as to their costs and benefits. To me the cost of creating and maintaining hundreds of more categories, and the need for constant monitoring and diffusion of the parent cat outweighs the benefit to the reader. We can easily link to this education category-by-year from the university category as a see also.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fine with me. For the 200+ years since 1800, during which time 98% of educational institutions have been established, it would be a significant aid to navigation and separate a rather sundry laundry list of schools of varying types into a much better focused and organized grouping. The tremendous benefit of integration into the structure in the parent
Category:Universities and colleges far outweighs the "bah, humbug" argument of "unneeded", which is always unneeded and arbitrary. After all, other than food, water and oxygen, nothing is needed.
Alansohn (
talk)
22:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Especially once you get to earlier years (eg pre 19th century), where there are very few grammar schools established, this just adds an additional, and unneeded, layer of navigation.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge since if we do not places like Brigham Young University will get put in multiple establishment categories. Educational institutions is an easy to define and broad name, this is a compound name, the exact extent of which will be complex, since at least half the things in Britain called "college" do not belong as "universities and colleges", and would we put The University of Pittsburgh College of Engineering in a sub-cat here, or is that not a college as used here? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge. The discussion below seems to be moving to a consensus that supports the upmerge here. The two discussions should not be closed in different ways. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:38, 29 January 2014 (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:Universities established in 1987
- 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:Educational institutions established in 1987. Taking both debates as a whole and individually, there is evident consensus for this upmerge.- Splash - tk 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This happens to be another one from Ottawahitech. There's an obvious X of Y fix that I perhaps could have taken care of at WP:CFDS. But I also want to call attention that this is presently the only subcat of his recently created Category:Universities and colleges by year of establishment, an otherwise unpopulated offshoot of the well established Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment. So I suppose this could also be a discussion about whether that large category system is ready for diffusion, and under what name? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- delete this one, and the parent. Category:Educational_institutions_by_year_of_establishment is well populated, and especially given that the majority of entities that merit an article here are likely to be universities, we don't need to create a whole separate tree just for universities and colleges to separate them away from the broader "Educational insitutions". Shawn, are you ok with nominating the parent of this cat as well to discuss both at the same time?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. On it right now. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Surely the proposed title should be Category:Universities and colleges established in 1987. -- BDD ( talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Corrected. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Educational institutions established in 1987. The educational institutions name avoids dealing with the complexities of whether universities or universities and colleges is the better term. Also, if we created this as a common tree, we would end up with the issue of what category to put Brigham Young University. It insists on an 1875 founding date, and has been in constant operation from that year, but it was not by any definition a university or college then, it was basically a high school. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upmerge to
Category:Educational institutions established in 1987 per JPL, to avoid arguments about how to categorise the many universities which started off as lesser institutions. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The same issues would come up with Morehouse College and many other HBCUs. Many colleges that started as all-women's institutions also started at the high school level. The more one knows about the history of education in the US, the harder it is to make this split work before 1900. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge per JPL. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (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:Brunonen Dynasty
- 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: no consensus. There is clearly disagreement about whether the head article is named correctly, and although no RM discussion has been opened, some references have been posted at Talk:Brunonids#Some_sources. I encourage interested editors to try to reach a consensus on the most appropriate name for the head article, and to feel free to open a fresh CFD nomination when that process has run its course.(Pinging CFD participants: Srnec, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Peterkingiron). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Brunonen Dynasty to Category:Brunonids
- Nominator's rationale: The article was moved by me to an English, because the German "Brunonen" causes problems when people don't realise what it is. It can't be used as an adjective (that would be Brunoner). Srnec ( talk) 17:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- speedy rename - you can make this a speedy to match head article.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- I am far from convinced that the article on the descendants of Brun, Duke of Saxony is correctly anglicised from Brunonen to Brunonid. I note a cognate case has become Ottonian and wonder whether the article and category ought not to be Brunonian dynasty and Category:Brunonian dynasty. I note that the article only has German sources, so that there must be a question as to what the correct English is. Can the nom, please cite some English sources? Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you think the article is at the wrong place you should propose a move there...-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:06, 31 December 2013 (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:Woman bishops
- 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 both into
Category:Women bishops.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
10:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Woman bishops to Category:Female bishops
- Nominator's rationale: merge this newly-created (yesterday) category to the pre-existing Category:Female bishops, which was created in 2007.
- The use of "female" rather than "woman" aligns with the parents ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Female religious leaders and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Female Christian clergy and religious.
- If the merger proceeds, Category:Woman bishops should be recreated as a {{ category redirect}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- merge per nom - and trout to the creator for having yet again created a duplicate of a gendered category. Please search more carefully - category creation is incredibly cheap and easy, but deleting/merging wastes a week of time.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
14:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The creator was
User:Ottawahitech, who also created several other categories which are currently being discussed at at CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- for those interested some of "my" categories which have recently been nominated for Deletion are listed at: User:Ottawahitech#.22my.22_categories. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- The creator was
User:Ottawahitech, who also created several other categories which are currently being discussed at at CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge; no good reason to have two separate categories for this topic. Nyttend ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Merge or reverse merge-- They are obviously the same thing. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)- Reverse merge Bishops are adults, and woman is the preferred term for an adult. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: There's a clear consensus to merge. However, the consensus on which direction isn't completely clear; and the nominated target hasn't been tagged.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom – if Ottawahitech wants a different name, start a cfd rather than create a duplicate (and it should be 'women', not 'woman', per everything in Category:Women by occupation except creations of Ottawahitech). Oculi ( talk) 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- create category
Category:Women bishops and merge both into it. This is the only reasonable name to describe the contents.
Hmains (
talk)
03:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmains is right, I had not noticed that as it exists this category is not properly pluralized. Still, women is the better title for a category that will include only adults. See for example Category:Women judges. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Hmains -- This is a good solution. Woman bishops is grammatically incorrect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Category:Women bishops is grammatically better than "woman" ... but the parent categories both use "female". It seems to me to to be best to retain consistency with the immediate parents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Hmains best Johnbod ( talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (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:Mongol peoples
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Mongol peoples to Category:Mongols
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Mongol peoples and Category:Mongols are same : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Merge_categories 182.160.3.119 ( talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- oppose The mongol peoples category contains sub-groups of Mongols, and as such is a useful set category as separate from the topic category of Mongols.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 18:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- keep as it Obi-Wan Kenobi is quite correct in his assessment of the situation. Hmains ( talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I can manually reorganize related subgroups and pages, it is not difficult. 182.160.4.162 ( talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per OWK. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are three categories: Category:Mongolian people, Category:Mongol peoples , Category:Mongols. Category:Mongolian people and Category:Mongols are the main categories. Why do we need to have 3 categories? 182.160.9.184 ( talk) 08:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Mongolian people is a set category, meant to contain actual people. Category:Mongols is a topic category, meant to contain topical information about mongols, including various tribes, kingdoms, etc. Category:Mongol peoples is intended to hold not people, but peoples - e.g. ethnic groupings of mongols. Since we have a good deal of them, a subcat is reasonable.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- Category:Mongolian people is for individual bio-articles. The other two are similar in content. We may need to make a distinction between articles relating to the people of Mongolia (formerly Outer Mongolia) and those about wider subjects about ethnic Mongols. If someone can write adequate headnotes to define these as distinct subjects and to sort the articles between the two, I can see a case for keeping two general categories, but I am not currently convinced that the two are currently adequately distinct. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are 7 subcategories, we can use these 7 subcategories instead of Category:Mongol people: Category:Southern Mongols, Category:Khalkha, Category:People from Inner Mongolia, Category:Buryat people, Category:Khitans Category:Oirats, Category:Dongxiang people 182.160.6.151 ( talk) 12:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Mongolian Wikipedians don't resist the merging, we don't need to have 2 similar categories. Wikipedia must be constructive : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mongols#Merge_categories
Category:Barlas, Category:Mongolian tribes and clans, Category:Xianbei, Category:Xiongnu, Category:Khitans, Category:Golden Horde, Category:Ilkhnate, Category:Chagatai khans, Category:Rouran, Mongol Empire people, Category:Yuan Dynasty people Category:People of the Ilkhanate 182.160.32.228 ( talk) 10:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per OWK. Johnbod ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2014 (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.