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, but not sure if this is really a merge rather than a delete and recategorize. Snowflake is an Individual gorilla and an Individual albino animal. "Individual albino gorillas" doesn't seem sustainable, but there are two existing categories for this animal.
Plantdrew (
talk)
06:29, 17 August 2015 (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:South African sailors (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.
Comment - This is where I get confused. Category:Sailors states "This is the category of all persons who have spent part of their life as recreational or commercial sailors, meaning as crew on a sailing vessel or other vessel" while Sailors (sport) is for "Worldwide index of famous sailboat racers. Includes Crew Members and Skippers etc." I suppose a Pirate might have been a professional sailor but according to those category "definitions" and my definition a sailor (sport) is the same as a sailor.
Gbawden (
talk)
11:34, 11 August 2015 (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:Television shows set in Sonoma, California
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:Television shows set in Petaluma, California
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:Television shows set in Gilroy, California
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:Television shows set in Palo Alto, California
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:Sinn Féin MPs
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.
Suggest renameCategory:Sinn Féin MPs since 1983 (not sure of the precise date - it could be, say, 1960). I would suggest that this can be directly parented to
Category:Sinn Féin politicians. The present name is ambiguous. The earlier group should be in a category something like
Category:Sinn Féin MPs before 1923. These in fact do not relate to the same party. The descendant of the early party in Northern Ireland was Official Sinn Fein, whereas the 1983 and later MPs are from what was earlier Provisional Sinn Fein. Note that MPs is an acceptable abbreviation. Sinn Fein has never fought any GB constituency, so that the inclusion of NI is redundant.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus, either on WP or in the literature, that Official Sinn Féin were the successors of Sinn Féin to the exclusion of "Provisional" Sinn Féin. The argument that pre-1923 and current do not relate to the same party is therefore not cut-and-dried.
Scolaire (
talk)
14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's true. So if the consensus is to delete then I have no problem with that.
Snappy (
talk)
Delete. While on the face of it it is logical to have a category for Sinn Féin MPs the same as Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, I believe this cat is not useful. The number of Sinn Féin elected MPs (since
Gerry Adams in 1983) is tiny, and will remain tiny for the foreseeable future. Unlike Tory etc. MPs they are elected in order to abstain from parliament and are therefore not on the greasy pole aiming to be prime minister or leader of the opposition, or indeed to have any say in the running of the UK. Gerry Adams has less in common with
Michelle Gildernew and
Conor Murphy than with
Martin McGuinness,
Mitchel McLaughlin and
Gerry Kelly. To have Adams and McGuinness in different cats decreases the information value of those cats. Far better to put elected MPs in the two categories of Sinn Féin politicians and Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Northern Irish constituencies. As the discussion here and at the category talk page shows, any time frame for "MPs xxxx–yyyy" is arbitrary and meaningless, and I would oppose any category with made-up dates. All MPs in the 1917–22 period are in
Category:Members of the 1st Dáil by virtue of their election as MP, and almost everybody in
Category:Early Sinn Féin politicians was elected MP, so having a third category would be overkill.
Scolaire (
talk)
08:52, 11 August 2015 (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:Pension
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:Geographical, historical and cultural regions
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 on what exactly to do here, but users appear to agree that some changes would be appropriate. So a re-nomination of any of the categories should be allowed after some manual re-organization and perhaps creation of new categories..
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: more easy-going name, with the explanation that it is for "Geographical, historical and cultural regions" being provided in a headnote. In most countries the term "regions" is being used instead of "areas" but we can't do that in France and Italy because "regions" has a specific administrative meaning in France and Italy. This is a follow-up nomination on
this discussion about Belgium which is still open.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment these are a hodge-podge. Look at France, we have subcats, wine areas and such, we could have (as suggested by Johnbod above) another subcat for
Category:Former provinces of France, where all those ancien-regime provinces now are to be found, but what I don't like is actual articles about areas that have nothing to do with one another some geographical, some administrative, some historical (in the sense of defunct), some cultural (or viticultural). It makes for a sort of "apples, oranges, and watermelons of the grocers" which doesn't really help navigate similar items. A container category could perhaps work, but not a "doesn't fit elsewhere, so lump it here" category as these seem to be.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Both previous comments seem to favor to narrow scope of category, rename and purge. As the nominator I would also be fine with this alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There absolutely are some defining threads running through different clusters of these articles. But they really need to be broken down further. I think deleting and starting fresh is the most direct route but, if other editors want to rename/purge that's fine too (and pretty much the same outcome).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:10, 14 August 2015 (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.
A few more award categories
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:Holidays and observances by frequency (to be determined)
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.
nomination is mixing up this maintenance category with main space categories. They cannot be cross discussed; they are separate.
Hmains (
talk)
04:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As either a maintenance category or a namespace one, this doesn't server any purpose. (For what it's worth, I suspect this is namespace category incorrectly tagged maintenance.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete serves no purpose; presumably so "holidays and observances" have irregular frequency (say "State Funerals" or "Coronations") that they'll never be categorizable but that isn't in need of "maintenance".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:27, 11 August 2015 (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:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year
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: None of the other states or regions within the Ottoman Empire contain their own establishments substructure and given the small number of possible categories here, it may be better to upmerge these to the Ottoman Empire establishments categories.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I guess so, the practice so far is to categorize year categories both by contemporary and by current polity. We had a huge discussion to change that for the Germany and Holy Roman Empire categories (the proposal was to categorize by Holy Roman Empire only, not by Germany) but I don't think the discussion has led to consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I thought it was for categorize by contemporary polity and then put those within the current polity history by period categories. As such, the HRE categories would be the main categories and then those would be under the Germany history by period structure. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I should be more precise: sometimes an article is in one category (HRE), sometimes in the other (Germany), sometimes in both - entirely dependent on the view of an individual editor. Anyway they're not related categories except at a very very top level.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- This arises from categorising by modern states. I dealt with various Turkish categories, but then ran out of steam. Ottoman Syria covers a larger area than the current Syria, but the six subcategories all need renaming or merging to Ottoman Empire ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support We do not have the contents to justify such a seperation. Ottoman Syria was not more distinct than other sub-units of the Ottoman Empire.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I oppose this suggestion. What needs to happen is a lot of work on adding articles to establishment categories, not undermining the work that has been done to date.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clearer consensus is needed on whether or not these categories also need to be upmerged to Syria categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- We had a series of discussions about this some time ago, when we settled on that format. I remember that well, as I was the nominator for many of them. Previously these were "Foo in Syria", at a time when the present country did not exist. Some content related to places now in Israel. We settled on the category relating to an Ottoman province, whose extent differed somewhat from the present Syria. Perhaps I should have gone on to make similar nominations for the provinces of Mosul and Baghdad, which are probably still Iraqi categories. This followed on from renaming "Foo in Turkey" categories to Ottoman Empire, though perhaps the targets should have been provincial ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to Something I'm open to either the proposal or a Ottoman province by century (if that addresses Peterkingiron's concern). Whatever the past discussions, this is creating a whole tree of underpopulated categories which doesn't aid navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It seems you are unaware that there are much more Ottoman Syrian categories, than shown here. It combines all "Foo in Jordan", "Foo in Syria", "Foo in Israel", "Foo in Palestine" and "Foo in Lebanon" from the Ottoman era.
GreyShark (
dibra)
14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per
user:Peterkingiron, the evolution of Ottoman Syria categories is a result of many discussions to avoid anachronism and edit-warring on sensitive topics (Syrian war, Israeli-Palestinian conflict etc.). Further, the Ottoman Syria categories stand for Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, which were semi-autonomous in regard to the central Ottoman government (like
Iraqi Kurdistan and
Iraq). We also have many events and categories specifically in Ottoman Syria, while Ottoman Empire is a much larger topic. Furthermore, Ottoman Syria topics are already linked as daughter categories of Ottoman Empire.
GreyShark (
dibra)
14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Marcocapelle:, @
Ricky81682:, please consider political correctness for using modern "Syria"n categories for past-related (contemporary) articles and categories, since
Syria main article is about the
Syrian Arab Republic, which frankly doesn't control most region of Syria any more (Syria is a failed state), and is pretty much politically sensitive. Utilization of "Syria" for past categories would also create a battleground which Syria is genuine - whether
Syrian Arab Republic or
Syrian Opposition. You don't want to get into it and this is why utilization of contemporary entities for pre-modern categories is so problematic. Also, there is a very likely scenario that Syria completely disintegrates and Kurds declare independence of
Rojava, would you rename all of the historic categories concerning North-East Syria once again to "Foo in Rojava"? this is nonsense.
GreyShark (
dibra)
08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The reason for relisting this discussion is exactly because it wasn't very clear whether or not we should upmerge to Syrian categories. On the one hand the name "Syria" has existed for a long time before the current republic was established, on the other hand it used to be much bigger in the past than the current republic. I can understand arguments from both sides.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If a new country is created, then yes we would need to reorganized and split the article appropriately. I'm sure we did that with
Southern Sudan and the like. At the moment, I'm just proposing here that we replace all of Ottoman Syria with the Ottoman Empire as no other subdivision of the Ottoman Empire exists. Otherwise, then I'll propose splitting the Ottoman Empire into its relevant subdivisions so that they connect with the current entities. The solution may be require an RFC given how complicated all this is at the moment. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
09:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Again, if you want to utilize a double category tree (modern+contemporary), then if
Rojava transforms into a state, you would be forced in such case to go to all historic categories and articles concerning North-East Syria and replace them with "Foo in Rojava" (like 19th century, 18th century and so on backwards). This is illogical and against Wikipedian principles, which strive for stable articles and categories.
GreyShark (
dibra)
09:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - centuries will not work well - there are too many Ottoman Syria year categories already. Considering dual upmerge per
User:Marcocapelle - there is no need, because all Ottoman Syria categories are already daughter categories of Ottoman Empire.
GreyShark (
dibra)
20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)reply
There are relatively few year categories and on top of that they are each very tiny (mostly 1 article per category). This would much better fit in a more robust century category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The issue isn't that there aren't enough year categories, it's that there aren't enough articles in those single year categories. Most of the tree is underpopulated. No objection to revisiting if/when there are more articles created.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support, but not sure if this is really a merge rather than a delete and recategorize. Snowflake is an Individual gorilla and an Individual albino animal. "Individual albino gorillas" doesn't seem sustainable, but there are two existing categories for this animal.
Plantdrew (
talk)
06:29, 17 August 2015 (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:South African sailors (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.
Comment - This is where I get confused. Category:Sailors states "This is the category of all persons who have spent part of their life as recreational or commercial sailors, meaning as crew on a sailing vessel or other vessel" while Sailors (sport) is for "Worldwide index of famous sailboat racers. Includes Crew Members and Skippers etc." I suppose a Pirate might have been a professional sailor but according to those category "definitions" and my definition a sailor (sport) is the same as a sailor.
Gbawden (
talk)
11:34, 11 August 2015 (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:Television shows set in Sonoma, California
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:Television shows set in Petaluma, California
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:Television shows set in Gilroy, California
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:Television shows set in Palo Alto, California
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:Sinn Féin MPs
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.
Suggest renameCategory:Sinn Féin MPs since 1983 (not sure of the precise date - it could be, say, 1960). I would suggest that this can be directly parented to
Category:Sinn Féin politicians. The present name is ambiguous. The earlier group should be in a category something like
Category:Sinn Féin MPs before 1923. These in fact do not relate to the same party. The descendant of the early party in Northern Ireland was Official Sinn Fein, whereas the 1983 and later MPs are from what was earlier Provisional Sinn Fein. Note that MPs is an acceptable abbreviation. Sinn Fein has never fought any GB constituency, so that the inclusion of NI is redundant.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus, either on WP or in the literature, that Official Sinn Féin were the successors of Sinn Féin to the exclusion of "Provisional" Sinn Féin. The argument that pre-1923 and current do not relate to the same party is therefore not cut-and-dried.
Scolaire (
talk)
14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's true. So if the consensus is to delete then I have no problem with that.
Snappy (
talk)
Delete. While on the face of it it is logical to have a category for Sinn Féin MPs the same as Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, I believe this cat is not useful. The number of Sinn Féin elected MPs (since
Gerry Adams in 1983) is tiny, and will remain tiny for the foreseeable future. Unlike Tory etc. MPs they are elected in order to abstain from parliament and are therefore not on the greasy pole aiming to be prime minister or leader of the opposition, or indeed to have any say in the running of the UK. Gerry Adams has less in common with
Michelle Gildernew and
Conor Murphy than with
Martin McGuinness,
Mitchel McLaughlin and
Gerry Kelly. To have Adams and McGuinness in different cats decreases the information value of those cats. Far better to put elected MPs in the two categories of Sinn Féin politicians and Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Northern Irish constituencies. As the discussion here and at the category talk page shows, any time frame for "MPs xxxx–yyyy" is arbitrary and meaningless, and I would oppose any category with made-up dates. All MPs in the 1917–22 period are in
Category:Members of the 1st Dáil by virtue of their election as MP, and almost everybody in
Category:Early Sinn Féin politicians was elected MP, so having a third category would be overkill.
Scolaire (
talk)
08:52, 11 August 2015 (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:Pension
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:Geographical, historical and cultural regions
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 on what exactly to do here, but users appear to agree that some changes would be appropriate. So a re-nomination of any of the categories should be allowed after some manual re-organization and perhaps creation of new categories..
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: more easy-going name, with the explanation that it is for "Geographical, historical and cultural regions" being provided in a headnote. In most countries the term "regions" is being used instead of "areas" but we can't do that in France and Italy because "regions" has a specific administrative meaning in France and Italy. This is a follow-up nomination on
this discussion about Belgium which is still open.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment these are a hodge-podge. Look at France, we have subcats, wine areas and such, we could have (as suggested by Johnbod above) another subcat for
Category:Former provinces of France, where all those ancien-regime provinces now are to be found, but what I don't like is actual articles about areas that have nothing to do with one another some geographical, some administrative, some historical (in the sense of defunct), some cultural (or viticultural). It makes for a sort of "apples, oranges, and watermelons of the grocers" which doesn't really help navigate similar items. A container category could perhaps work, but not a "doesn't fit elsewhere, so lump it here" category as these seem to be.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Both previous comments seem to favor to narrow scope of category, rename and purge. As the nominator I would also be fine with this alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There absolutely are some defining threads running through different clusters of these articles. But they really need to be broken down further. I think deleting and starting fresh is the most direct route but, if other editors want to rename/purge that's fine too (and pretty much the same outcome).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:10, 14 August 2015 (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.
A few more award categories
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:Holidays and observances by frequency (to be determined)
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.
nomination is mixing up this maintenance category with main space categories. They cannot be cross discussed; they are separate.
Hmains (
talk)
04:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As either a maintenance category or a namespace one, this doesn't server any purpose. (For what it's worth, I suspect this is namespace category incorrectly tagged maintenance.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete serves no purpose; presumably so "holidays and observances" have irregular frequency (say "State Funerals" or "Coronations") that they'll never be categorizable but that isn't in need of "maintenance".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:27, 11 August 2015 (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:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year
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: None of the other states or regions within the Ottoman Empire contain their own establishments substructure and given the small number of possible categories here, it may be better to upmerge these to the Ottoman Empire establishments categories.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I guess so, the practice so far is to categorize year categories both by contemporary and by current polity. We had a huge discussion to change that for the Germany and Holy Roman Empire categories (the proposal was to categorize by Holy Roman Empire only, not by Germany) but I don't think the discussion has led to consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I thought it was for categorize by contemporary polity and then put those within the current polity history by period categories. As such, the HRE categories would be the main categories and then those would be under the Germany history by period structure. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
I should be more precise: sometimes an article is in one category (HRE), sometimes in the other (Germany), sometimes in both - entirely dependent on the view of an individual editor. Anyway they're not related categories except at a very very top level.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- This arises from categorising by modern states. I dealt with various Turkish categories, but then ran out of steam. Ottoman Syria covers a larger area than the current Syria, but the six subcategories all need renaming or merging to Ottoman Empire ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support We do not have the contents to justify such a seperation. Ottoman Syria was not more distinct than other sub-units of the Ottoman Empire.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I oppose this suggestion. What needs to happen is a lot of work on adding articles to establishment categories, not undermining the work that has been done to date.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Clearer consensus is needed on whether or not these categories also need to be upmerged to Syria categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- We had a series of discussions about this some time ago, when we settled on that format. I remember that well, as I was the nominator for many of them. Previously these were "Foo in Syria", at a time when the present country did not exist. Some content related to places now in Israel. We settled on the category relating to an Ottoman province, whose extent differed somewhat from the present Syria. Perhaps I should have gone on to make similar nominations for the provinces of Mosul and Baghdad, which are probably still Iraqi categories. This followed on from renaming "Foo in Turkey" categories to Ottoman Empire, though perhaps the targets should have been provincial ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to Something I'm open to either the proposal or a Ottoman province by century (if that addresses Peterkingiron's concern). Whatever the past discussions, this is creating a whole tree of underpopulated categories which doesn't aid navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
It seems you are unaware that there are much more Ottoman Syrian categories, than shown here. It combines all "Foo in Jordan", "Foo in Syria", "Foo in Israel", "Foo in Palestine" and "Foo in Lebanon" from the Ottoman era.
GreyShark (
dibra)
14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per
user:Peterkingiron, the evolution of Ottoman Syria categories is a result of many discussions to avoid anachronism and edit-warring on sensitive topics (Syrian war, Israeli-Palestinian conflict etc.). Further, the Ottoman Syria categories stand for Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, which were semi-autonomous in regard to the central Ottoman government (like
Iraqi Kurdistan and
Iraq). We also have many events and categories specifically in Ottoman Syria, while Ottoman Empire is a much larger topic. Furthermore, Ottoman Syria topics are already linked as daughter categories of Ottoman Empire.
GreyShark (
dibra)
14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
Marcocapelle:, @
Ricky81682:, please consider political correctness for using modern "Syria"n categories for past-related (contemporary) articles and categories, since
Syria main article is about the
Syrian Arab Republic, which frankly doesn't control most region of Syria any more (Syria is a failed state), and is pretty much politically sensitive. Utilization of "Syria" for past categories would also create a battleground which Syria is genuine - whether
Syrian Arab Republic or
Syrian Opposition. You don't want to get into it and this is why utilization of contemporary entities for pre-modern categories is so problematic. Also, there is a very likely scenario that Syria completely disintegrates and Kurds declare independence of
Rojava, would you rename all of the historic categories concerning North-East Syria once again to "Foo in Rojava"? this is nonsense.
GreyShark (
dibra)
08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The reason for relisting this discussion is exactly because it wasn't very clear whether or not we should upmerge to Syrian categories. On the one hand the name "Syria" has existed for a long time before the current republic was established, on the other hand it used to be much bigger in the past than the current republic. I can understand arguments from both sides.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If a new country is created, then yes we would need to reorganized and split the article appropriately. I'm sure we did that with
Southern Sudan and the like. At the moment, I'm just proposing here that we replace all of Ottoman Syria with the Ottoman Empire as no other subdivision of the Ottoman Empire exists. Otherwise, then I'll propose splitting the Ottoman Empire into its relevant subdivisions so that they connect with the current entities. The solution may be require an RFC given how complicated all this is at the moment. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
09:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Again, if you want to utilize a double category tree (modern+contemporary), then if
Rojava transforms into a state, you would be forced in such case to go to all historic categories and articles concerning North-East Syria and replace them with "Foo in Rojava" (like 19th century, 18th century and so on backwards). This is illogical and against Wikipedian principles, which strive for stable articles and categories.
GreyShark (
dibra)
09:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - centuries will not work well - there are too many Ottoman Syria year categories already. Considering dual upmerge per
User:Marcocapelle - there is no need, because all Ottoman Syria categories are already daughter categories of Ottoman Empire.
GreyShark (
dibra)
20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)reply
There are relatively few year categories and on top of that they are each very tiny (mostly 1 article per category). This would much better fit in a more robust century category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The issue isn't that there aren't enough year categories, it's that there aren't enough articles in those single year categories. Most of the tree is underpopulated. No objection to revisiting if/when there are more articles created.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
04:37, 16 August 2015 (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.