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.
I checked those two templates before making this nomination, and they both have already been corrected (unless you mean moving them both to new names; I'm referring to what actually displays in each case). --
Tryptofish (
talk)
19:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I mean the place in the template code that adds the user to a category; the reference to Wikipedia reviewers will need to be changed to Wikipedia pending changes reviewers after the category is moved. Just wanted to note it here as a memory jogger for one of us to remember to do it. –
Wdchk (
talk)03:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty much neutral as to "Wikipedia" versus "Wikipedian" (although perhaps "reviewers" already conveys the personal characteristic), but I think it needs to be "changes" rather than "change" because that's the term in use for PC. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'd be okay with that. I don't think "reviewers" does convey that alone, there could be confusion it was a mainspace category without "Wikipedian".
VegaDark (
talk)
18:30, 11 October 2014 (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:Delicious and greasy
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 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:Footballers from Ankara
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs
[1] and this one
[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. Also upmerge entries into Category Turkish footballers as necessary.
...William20:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Thbe proposed merger would make the category too large to be useful. This stream on nominations is the result of an ill-considered closure of a category, related to ice-hockey. I think in that case there were few enough for a state-wide to be worthwhile. However, the presetn trend for merging people who play one sport to enormous sportspeople categories loses useful data on what theri sport is.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Ankara is a populous and major capital that warrants such subdivision. Population-wise, it is bigger than most US states. No comment made on the smaller areas listed above by CeeGee.
SFB23:15, 7 September 2014 (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:Category:Prejudicial phobia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is really a request for help regarding renaming options for the Category. I created the category a short time ago but have had problems with the name. The problem is that, while the category contains items that are described as phobias, the reality sometimes regards more blatant and unmanaged forms of prejudice.
That last option was an earlier idea on the basis that, while "Prejudicial phobia" first introduces prejudice and follows this up with mention of the more excusable concept of phobia, Phobias (prejudicial) starts with Phobia and then ups the ante with mention of prejudice. At least that was the idea.
I'm now hoping for a bit of wisdom.
Support merge per Editor2020 While the terms are labelled phobias, they aren't sufficiently distinct in that fashion from other prejudices, (for example anti-Semitism, ableism, anti-intellectualism). The category does not serve a function beyond "prejudices ending 'phobia'". May be worth evaluating how articles are placed between phobia and prejudice trees though.
SFB18:32, 8 September 2014 (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:People from Réunion
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose -- While "Réunionnais" is technically the correct demonymic adjective, it is not sufficiently in common use in English to be preferable to what we have at present.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: Just as a note, this is also a test case for the idea of whether "Réunionnais people" is acceptable, as we already have varied usage in the child categories.
SFB23:34, 7 September 2014 (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:Azerbaijani football clubs in European football
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 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:Communications satellite models
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in said category describe different models of
satellite buses. It's hard to guess what author of this category had in mind, but since it was moved to a subcategory of satellite bus - it became completely redundant. Satellites buses are covered by
Category:Satellite bus - this category already contains buses designed for communication sats, and the distinction between comm-sat buses and non-comm sat buses doesn't really exist. Also note that the name is very misleading - in a most common usage "satellite model" is a toy that you buy in a store with space gadgets; satellite bus is what the articles in this category describe. Both categories are overlapping so much that there is no justification for the existence of Communications satellite models.
SkywalkerPL (
talk)
17:41, 6 September 2014 (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:Conservation areas
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.
Merge to match the presnt main article. I will comment that in UK a Conservation Area is one in which there are additional planning restrictions on alterations to buildings to conserve the built environment of the area.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:10, 7 September 2014 (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:Sportspeople in Tallinn
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container subcategory. Consensus is Team athlete categories get placed in 'Sport from Foo' of whatever place their team originates from.
...William13:24, 6 September 2014 (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:Figure skaters from Kiev
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.
Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once you go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining.
Rikster2 (
talk)
07:57, 8 September 2014 (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:Sportspeople from Moscow by sport
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; I considered some of the previous similar discussions in closing this. There seems to be a basic consensus for this, but at this stage, I would suggest that the consensus is marginal—it wouldn't take much to flip the consensus to no consensus, so I think further discussion on categories of this type will be helpful.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- the categories that I checked are quite well enough populated to keep. Where we have a minute category, would should do a full upmerge; where it is well populated we should keep it. The precedents cited are bad ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose child cats merge Moscow is a major city that warrants this subdivision. It's population of 11.5 million has a strong sporting history, shown by the fact that many of these categories are well filled out yet nearly 500 are still present in the main cat.
SFB23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once yo go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining.
Rikster2 (
talk)
07:56, 8 September 2014 (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.
Subprefectures in Hokkaido
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Severely underused categories. Though Hokkaido can be split into subprefectures, this does not serve much of a purpose, as there aren't too many biographical articles on people from Hokkaido in the first place. The subprefectures are also more bureaucratic divisions instead of indicating any strongly cultural divisions (e.g. I'm not sure if there are many cultural differences between
Kushiro and
Nemuro). Much of the subprefecture categories are already served by city categories (such as most of Oshima being served by the
Category:People from Hakodate, Hokkaido category). It makes more sense to unify these, and split people by city if enough pages warrant a city division.
Other subprefectures exist in Japan, such as in Kagoshima, Nagasaki, Okinawa, etc, but none of these categories split people by origin at this level. --
Prosperosity (
talk)
12:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support merge Prefectures are not prominent parts of people's identities. Better subdivided by major cities/regions instead.
SFB23:43, 7 September 2014 (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:Marches
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 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:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- Pakistan did not exist until 1947. Artciles related to the history of present country before partition should be in History of India categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. I don't know much about this topic and whether it's adequately populated, but from a brief perusal I don't really see a strong argument for deletion.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:43, 21 November 2014 (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:Post-medieval history of Pakistan
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.
Alternative proposal: delete because the category only contains one childcategory
Category:Mughal Empire which is already a childcategory of
Category:Early Modern history by country. In other words, the rationale of the alternative proposal is to avoid duplication in Early Modern history tree, to treat Mughal Empire as the one relevant (former) country and to ignore Pakistan as an anachronistic country.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's an interesting comment, as it makes me wonder whether Mughal Empire should be in the India category either. At least in
Category:Early Modern history by country the Mughal Empire has been treated as a former country that is neither equivalent to Pakistan nor India. That seems like a pretty fair way of categorization because one can argue that India started to exist in 1947 as well as Pakistan did. The Mughal Empire can't really be viewed as a predecessor of India, as it gradually imploded in the course of the 18th and 19th century. With this way of reasoning, everything referring to the era before the independence movement for India and Pakistan should be categorized directly in the
History of South Asia tree rather than in the
History of India tree. Is there perhaps a categorization guideline on this topic already?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. That said, this category should be renamed/merged as proposed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:41, 21 November 2014 (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:Ancient Near East stub articles
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I checked those two templates before making this nomination, and they both have already been corrected (unless you mean moving them both to new names; I'm referring to what actually displays in each case). --
Tryptofish (
talk)
19:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I mean the place in the template code that adds the user to a category; the reference to Wikipedia reviewers will need to be changed to Wikipedia pending changes reviewers after the category is moved. Just wanted to note it here as a memory jogger for one of us to remember to do it. –
Wdchk (
talk)03:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty much neutral as to "Wikipedia" versus "Wikipedian" (although perhaps "reviewers" already conveys the personal characteristic), but I think it needs to be "changes" rather than "change" because that's the term in use for PC. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'd be okay with that. I don't think "reviewers" does convey that alone, there could be confusion it was a mainspace category without "Wikipedian".
VegaDark (
talk)
18:30, 11 October 2014 (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:Delicious and greasy
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 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:Footballers from Ankara
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs
[1] and this one
[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. Also upmerge entries into Category Turkish footballers as necessary.
...William20:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Thbe proposed merger would make the category too large to be useful. This stream on nominations is the result of an ill-considered closure of a category, related to ice-hockey. I think in that case there were few enough for a state-wide to be worthwhile. However, the presetn trend for merging people who play one sport to enormous sportspeople categories loses useful data on what theri sport is.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Ankara is a populous and major capital that warrants such subdivision. Population-wise, it is bigger than most US states. No comment made on the smaller areas listed above by CeeGee.
SFB23:15, 7 September 2014 (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:Category:Prejudicial phobia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is really a request for help regarding renaming options for the Category. I created the category a short time ago but have had problems with the name. The problem is that, while the category contains items that are described as phobias, the reality sometimes regards more blatant and unmanaged forms of prejudice.
That last option was an earlier idea on the basis that, while "Prejudicial phobia" first introduces prejudice and follows this up with mention of the more excusable concept of phobia, Phobias (prejudicial) starts with Phobia and then ups the ante with mention of prejudice. At least that was the idea.
I'm now hoping for a bit of wisdom.
Support merge per Editor2020 While the terms are labelled phobias, they aren't sufficiently distinct in that fashion from other prejudices, (for example anti-Semitism, ableism, anti-intellectualism). The category does not serve a function beyond "prejudices ending 'phobia'". May be worth evaluating how articles are placed between phobia and prejudice trees though.
SFB18:32, 8 September 2014 (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:People from Réunion
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose -- While "Réunionnais" is technically the correct demonymic adjective, it is not sufficiently in common use in English to be preferable to what we have at present.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: Just as a note, this is also a test case for the idea of whether "Réunionnais people" is acceptable, as we already have varied usage in the child categories.
SFB23:34, 7 September 2014 (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:Azerbaijani football clubs in European football
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 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:Communications satellite models
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in said category describe different models of
satellite buses. It's hard to guess what author of this category had in mind, but since it was moved to a subcategory of satellite bus - it became completely redundant. Satellites buses are covered by
Category:Satellite bus - this category already contains buses designed for communication sats, and the distinction between comm-sat buses and non-comm sat buses doesn't really exist. Also note that the name is very misleading - in a most common usage "satellite model" is a toy that you buy in a store with space gadgets; satellite bus is what the articles in this category describe. Both categories are overlapping so much that there is no justification for the existence of Communications satellite models.
SkywalkerPL (
talk)
17:41, 6 September 2014 (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:Conservation areas
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.
Merge to match the presnt main article. I will comment that in UK a Conservation Area is one in which there are additional planning restrictions on alterations to buildings to conserve the built environment of the area.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:10, 7 September 2014 (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:Sportspeople in Tallinn
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container subcategory. Consensus is Team athlete categories get placed in 'Sport from Foo' of whatever place their team originates from.
...William13:24, 6 September 2014 (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:Figure skaters from Kiev
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.
Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once you go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining.
Rikster2 (
talk)
07:57, 8 September 2014 (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:Sportspeople from Moscow by sport
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; I considered some of the previous similar discussions in closing this. There seems to be a basic consensus for this, but at this stage, I would suggest that the consensus is marginal—it wouldn't take much to flip the consensus to no consensus, so I think further discussion on categories of this type will be helpful.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- the categories that I checked are quite well enough populated to keep. Where we have a minute category, would should do a full upmerge; where it is well populated we should keep it. The precedents cited are bad ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose child cats merge Moscow is a major city that warrants this subdivision. It's population of 11.5 million has a strong sporting history, shown by the fact that many of these categories are well filled out yet nearly 500 are still present in the main cat.
SFB23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - at the city level, past CfD has been very consistent that "sportspeople" is the lowest level of diffusion for these categories - not by individual sport. The lowest level at the individual sport level has been province. Once yo go lower, it's not that meaningful or defining.
Rikster2 (
talk)
07:56, 8 September 2014 (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.
Subprefectures in Hokkaido
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Severely underused categories. Though Hokkaido can be split into subprefectures, this does not serve much of a purpose, as there aren't too many biographical articles on people from Hokkaido in the first place. The subprefectures are also more bureaucratic divisions instead of indicating any strongly cultural divisions (e.g. I'm not sure if there are many cultural differences between
Kushiro and
Nemuro). Much of the subprefecture categories are already served by city categories (such as most of Oshima being served by the
Category:People from Hakodate, Hokkaido category). It makes more sense to unify these, and split people by city if enough pages warrant a city division.
Other subprefectures exist in Japan, such as in Kagoshima, Nagasaki, Okinawa, etc, but none of these categories split people by origin at this level. --
Prosperosity (
talk)
12:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Support merge Prefectures are not prominent parts of people's identities. Better subdivided by major cities/regions instead.
SFB23:43, 7 September 2014 (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:Marches
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 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:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- Pakistan did not exist until 1947. Artciles related to the history of present country before partition should be in History of India categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. I don't know much about this topic and whether it's adequately populated, but from a brief perusal I don't really see a strong argument for deletion.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:43, 21 November 2014 (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:Post-medieval history of Pakistan
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.
Alternative proposal: delete because the category only contains one childcategory
Category:Mughal Empire which is already a childcategory of
Category:Early Modern history by country. In other words, the rationale of the alternative proposal is to avoid duplication in Early Modern history tree, to treat Mughal Empire as the one relevant (former) country and to ignore Pakistan as an anachronistic country.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)reply
That's an interesting comment, as it makes me wonder whether Mughal Empire should be in the India category either. At least in
Category:Early Modern history by country the Mughal Empire has been treated as a former country that is neither equivalent to Pakistan nor India. That seems like a pretty fair way of categorization because one can argue that India started to exist in 1947 as well as Pakistan did. The Mughal Empire can't really be viewed as a predecessor of India, as it gradually imploded in the course of the 18th and 19th century. With this way of reasoning, everything referring to the era before the independence movement for India and Pakistan should be categorized directly in the
History of South Asia tree rather than in the
History of India tree. Is there perhaps a categorization guideline on this topic already?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename. I'm open to having categories that refer to a current geographical entity in the context of historical events that happened in that region of the earth before the geographical entity was created. Books, articles, and other sources do this all the time and there's nothing really unusual about it. Doing so helps readers situate the historical events into the world using a template that they already understand. That said, this category should be renamed/merged as proposed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:41, 21 November 2014 (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:Ancient Near East stub articles
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 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.