- 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.
MER-C
13:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1840s in Panama to Category:1840s in the Republic of New Granada
- Propose merging Category:1848 in Panama to Category:1848 in the Republic of New Granada
- Propose merging Category:1849 in Panama to Category:1849 in the Republic of New Granada
- Nominator's rationale: At the relevant time, Panama was still a part of the Republic of New Granada. This entire structure is empty already following the edits of User:Johnpacklambert here and here removing the establishment categories so it's just clarification. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support We should not have Panama categories pre-dating its indepdendence. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Split to Category:1840s in Panama (New Granada) and Category:1840s in Veragua, the provinces of New Granada that became Panama -- this would be similar to subnational divisions elsewhere, such as Category:1870s in Arizona Territory -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- A narrow subdivision like that is only meaningful if there is sufficient content per category, which is not the case here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Such subdivisions of say Category:1848 in the Republic of New Granada can be undertaken when that category is of sufficient size to justify such. At present it is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- support - per nomination. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (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.
- 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:Demographics of New York and Category:Utica, New York. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item eponymous category created just to contain its eponym, with no other articles that can be added it to make it anything other than a WP:SMALLCAT. Individual cities virtually never need their own "Demographics" categories, precisely because a single article listing the demographics is all that such a category could actually contain. Category:Demographics of New York City is a noteworthy exception, because just for starters each of the five boroughs has its own separate spinoff and some individual demographic groups do too — but a city with a population of just 62K doesn't need an eponymous category to hold a single demographics article. Upmerge to Category:Demographics of New York and Category:Utica, New York. Bearcat ( talk) 19:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously full upmerge - no room for expansion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2015 (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.
- 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: speedy delete (G7).
MER-C
13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - creator requested deletion because mistyped title. Instead correct one Category:Wine regions of Turkey created. -- CeeGee 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sppedy delete -- It should have been placed in the speedy section, not here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Serie A championship winning seasons to Category:Scudetto-winning seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. A team which wins Serie A championship wins scudetto: Category:Serie A championship winning seasons contains winners in 1984-2002, Category:Scudetto-winning seasons winners in 2003-2013, but this distinction isn't justified. Epì dosis 16:55, 19 July 2015 (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.
- 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. MER-C 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 16:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge If the 500 residents of this town generate enough notable people, we can always recreate it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:22, 1 August 2015 (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.
- 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 all except Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey and Category:People from Northfield, New Jersey. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Also propose merging-
- Category:People from Buena, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Brigantine, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Folsom, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Port Republic, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Mullica Township, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Northfield, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Rochelle Park, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Rockleigh, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county communities with 4 or less entries. ...William 15:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge Full diffusion of the county category allows for effective navigation across the category structure, and fulfills the stated purpose of the WP:CLN editing guideline of allowing the category and corresponding list to be built in synergistic fashion. The nominator's cutoff of four is utterly arbitrary and capricious and has no relevance in policy or in making Wikipedia an effective tool for navigating through and viewing articles by way of the category structure. Why not two or seven or any other number? What is it about having five entries that fulfills a magic number? What distinguishes Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey, which has four entries and therefore must be deleted, from Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey, which is one of several categories listed above that already has five entries and will be retained? Alansohn ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Carlstadt & Northfield/Delete All Others The spirit of
WP:OCMISC really applies here: "It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories." Just because some towns in Atlantic County are viable sub-categories, doesn't mean there still can't be loose articles at the county level for really small towns.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Carlstadt & Northfield have reached 5 articles, probably since the nomination. Brigantine also has 5 but I question including an article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The rationalization used to demand deletion,
WP:OCMISC states Do not categorize articles into "miscellaneous", "other", "not otherwise specified" or "remainder" categories. It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories. If there are some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories, leave the articles in the parent category. The articles categorized together as "other" or "miscellaneous" generally will have little in common and therefore should not be categorized together in a dedicated "miscellaneous" category. It's inarguable that every entry in
Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey belongs there based on residence, not because "some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories". Nothing is "necessary", but all of these articles belong in the subcategory, rather than in the parent. Are you going to offer any explanation for the arbitrary magic number? Why "Keep Carlstadt & Northfield" because they have five entries, while other have four and must be deleted?
Alansohn (
talk)
04:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, I said "spirit of WP:OCMISC" not because they are literally miscellaneous but because they suffer from the same problem. Both the argument here and the problems with miscellaneous categories are identical: that if *some* articles are in sub-categories then they *all* have to be even if that produces sub-categories that aren't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support nomination (but no objection if Carlstadt & Northfield are kept). We've meanwhile had many similar upmergers of 'people from small community' to 'people from county'. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Such small categories just make it harder to use categories for searching, and in the case of counties people will often have moved between various parts of the county, so it is often just plain overcategorization to place them as from just one place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 13 August 2015 (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.
- 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/rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Realtors to Category:Real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional realtors to Category:Fictional real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Realtors by nationality to Category:Real estate brokers by nationality
- Propose renaming Category:American realtors to Category:American real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian realtors to Category:Canadian real estate agents
- Propose merging Category:Bahamian realtors to Category:Real estate brokers
- Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename to match main article Real estate broker. I looked at a lot of the American pages, and they mainly use "real estate broker". The page realtor redirects to that name already. The Bahamian category is not useful for navigation as it has only one member. The British category "estate agents" has been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_16. Canadians articles seem to use "realtor" or "real estate agent" equally, but in Canada Realtor is a registered trademark of the The Canadian Real Estate Association, so the wider term is preferred. Note: this is a follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 28 which was closed with no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - "Realtor" is not only a made-up word (coined by real estate agent Charles N. Chadbourn of Minneapolis; a court ruled in 1920 that the word "had never been used in any way whatsoever until so invented"), but a trademarked one (at least in the United States), designating members of a specific organization (and one with a somewhat sordid history) . I am stunned to see that these categories exist. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added the Canadian category following your comment. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reply - excellent; I was going to suggest you do so. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Things are a bit different today than they were in 1920 (not sure -- I wasn't around in those days). Today we have the National Association of Realtors in the United States, which I hope Wikipedia recognizes as a legitimate organization? Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added the Canadian category following your comment. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - "Realtor" is a trademarked proper noun. Not all real-estate brokers are Realtors. I'd also note that per both proper grammar and Wikipedia MOS, compound modifiers take hyphens, so the category would properly be named "Real-estate brokers". They're not nonfictional estate brokers (people who handle estate sales). -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question -- Is this the right target for the Bahamas. These were a British colony and presumably used British land law. My recollection is that the category (which we have previous discussed) contains one article, which used this American term. However is that accurate or because the article author was American and applied an Americanism? Otherwise support.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron, the nomination for the small Bahamian category is an upmerge to the worldwide category, of which the name follows the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Something Adding on to what Tenebrae said about "Realtors", it looks like "Real estate broker" can have specific legal meaning in the US. Would Category:Real estate workers be a generic term across countries? RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Well there is the broader
Category:Businesspeople in real estate
Hugo999 (
talk)
13:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- But that one also covers the separate categories for property developers and investors/landlords. "Real estate broker" is a sufficiently generic description to cover the worldwide category of estate brokers/agents/"realtors", as evidenced by its use as the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose agents & brokers are two different animals -- realtors is the combination of the two (at least in North America). Keeping the name realtors allows this category to include both agents&brokers
Ottawahitech (
talk)
04:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- @ Ottawahitech: what difference did you have in mind? The Realtor .com link given above by user:RevelationDirect says that brokers are a sub-set of agents, in which case perhaps we should rename to "agents". However, the Wikipedia main article Real estate broker generally does not distinguish them, and is unclear in the places where it attempts to do so. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I see that there was also a previous discussiion here:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28#Realtor_and_Real_estate_agents_categories.
Ottawahitech (
talk)
05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes – as stated in the nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:47, 28 August 2015 (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.
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
12:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:18th-century establishments in the Netherlands to Category:18th-century establishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:17th-century establishments in the Netherlands to Category:17th-century establishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Netherlands to Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:17th-century disestablishments in the Netherlands to Category:17th-century disestablishments in the Dutch Republic
- Nominator's rationale: per Dutch Republic for years 1581–1795 Tim! ( talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question: shouldn't C18 be kept, as it holds Category:1798 establishments in the Netherlands? – Fayenatic L ondon 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that one ought to be merged into Category:1798 establishments in the Batavian Republic, as Netherlands does not come into existence until 1815. Tim! ( talk) 05:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support (as amended). The Batavian Republic existed 1795-1815, so does not need a split by century. It should be followed by United Netherlands 1815-c.1830 and then Netherlands. All these should have a Netherlands parent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - but no need for the Netherlands parent. We can instead use something like "Early modern Netherlands" category and "Middle Ages Netherlands" for earlier period to be under the modern Netherlands year tree. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support No need to identify the Rebublic with the kingdom founded in the 19th century. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (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.
- 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: speedy rename C2A. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Polish Neurosurgeon to Category:Polish neurosurgeons
- Nominator's rationale: Proper naming conventions for categories. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 19 July 2015 (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.
- 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. (Note that there are a number of subcategories of
Category:Ulama that were not included in this nomination.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerge Category:Algerian Sunni ulama to Category:Algerian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Australian Sunni ulama to Category:Australian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose merge Category:Chinese Sunni ulama to Category:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Chinese Muslims
- Propose upmerge Category:Egyptian Sunni ulama to Category:Egyptian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Egyptian Salafi ulama to Category:Egyptian Muslim scholars and Category:Egyptian Salafis
- Propose upmerge Category:English Sunni ulama to Category:English Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Filipino Sunni ulama to Category:Filipino Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Iraqi Sunni ulama to Category:Iraqi Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "ulama" is not a defining characteristic of these articles (see WP:NONDEF). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP project Islam notified of nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question @ Marcocapelle: The Ulama article makes it look defining to me, but I can't tell if it passes WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Is there a recognized list/source of who is and isn't an ulama? RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a list or source like that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support
Deletebut per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I think it's defining but couldn't find any recognized body or list to independently provide the title. No objection to recreating if such a source can be found. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @ RevelationDirect: Do you really mean a weak delete or do you weakly support the merge nomination? Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, corrected. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The small category. Shyamsunder ( talk) 05:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- now empty. I presume this is because the contents have been moved elsewhere, perhaps to Bihar. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator moved this one. Shyamsunder, it is generally not helpful to empty categories before the end of a CFD discussion. Perhaps a merge recommendation would have been better. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Not great form a procedural standpoint, but that merge was the best outcome. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2015 (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.
- 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.
MER-C
13:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1840s in Panama to Category:1840s in the Republic of New Granada
- Propose merging Category:1848 in Panama to Category:1848 in the Republic of New Granada
- Propose merging Category:1849 in Panama to Category:1849 in the Republic of New Granada
- Nominator's rationale: At the relevant time, Panama was still a part of the Republic of New Granada. This entire structure is empty already following the edits of User:Johnpacklambert here and here removing the establishment categories so it's just clarification. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support We should not have Panama categories pre-dating its indepdendence. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Split to Category:1840s in Panama (New Granada) and Category:1840s in Veragua, the provinces of New Granada that became Panama -- this would be similar to subnational divisions elsewhere, such as Category:1870s in Arizona Territory -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 05:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- A narrow subdivision like that is only meaningful if there is sufficient content per category, which is not the case here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Such subdivisions of say Category:1848 in the Republic of New Granada can be undertaken when that category is of sufficient size to justify such. At present it is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- support - per nomination. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (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.
- 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:Demographics of New York and Category:Utica, New York. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item eponymous category created just to contain its eponym, with no other articles that can be added it to make it anything other than a WP:SMALLCAT. Individual cities virtually never need their own "Demographics" categories, precisely because a single article listing the demographics is all that such a category could actually contain. Category:Demographics of New York City is a noteworthy exception, because just for starters each of the five boroughs has its own separate spinoff and some individual demographic groups do too — but a city with a population of just 62K doesn't need an eponymous category to hold a single demographics article. Upmerge to Category:Demographics of New York and Category:Utica, New York. Bearcat ( talk) 19:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously full upmerge - no room for expansion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:51, 20 July 2015 (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.
- 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: speedy delete (G7).
MER-C
13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - creator requested deletion because mistyped title. Instead correct one Category:Wine regions of Turkey created. -- CeeGee 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sppedy delete -- It should have been placed in the speedy section, not here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Serie A championship winning seasons to Category:Scudetto-winning seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. A team which wins Serie A championship wins scudetto: Category:Serie A championship winning seasons contains winners in 1984-2002, Category:Scudetto-winning seasons winners in 2003-2013, but this distinction isn't justified. Epì dosis 16:55, 19 July 2015 (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.
- 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. MER-C 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 16:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge If the 500 residents of this town generate enough notable people, we can always recreate it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:22, 1 August 2015 (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.
- 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 all except Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey and Category:People from Northfield, New Jersey. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Also propose merging-
- Category:People from Buena, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Brigantine, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Folsom, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Port Republic, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Mullica Township, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Northfield, New Jersey to Category:People from Atlantic County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Rochelle Park, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Category:People from Rockleigh, New Jersey to Category:People from Bergen County, New Jersey
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county communities with 4 or less entries. ...William 15:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge Full diffusion of the county category allows for effective navigation across the category structure, and fulfills the stated purpose of the WP:CLN editing guideline of allowing the category and corresponding list to be built in synergistic fashion. The nominator's cutoff of four is utterly arbitrary and capricious and has no relevance in policy or in making Wikipedia an effective tool for navigating through and viewing articles by way of the category structure. Why not two or seven or any other number? What is it about having five entries that fulfills a magic number? What distinguishes Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey, which has four entries and therefore must be deleted, from Category:People from Carlstadt, New Jersey, which is one of several categories listed above that already has five entries and will be retained? Alansohn ( talk) 20:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Carlstadt & Northfield/Delete All Others The spirit of
WP:OCMISC really applies here: "It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories." Just because some towns in Atlantic County are viable sub-categories, doesn't mean there still can't be loose articles at the county level for really small towns.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Carlstadt & Northfield have reached 5 articles, probably since the nomination. Brigantine also has 5 but I question including an article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The rationalization used to demand deletion,
WP:OCMISC states Do not categorize articles into "miscellaneous", "other", "not otherwise specified" or "remainder" categories. It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories. If there are some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories, leave the articles in the parent category. The articles categorized together as "other" or "miscellaneous" generally will have little in common and therefore should not be categorized together in a dedicated "miscellaneous" category. It's inarguable that every entry in
Category:People from Emerson, New Jersey belongs there based on residence, not because "some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories". Nothing is "necessary", but all of these articles belong in the subcategory, rather than in the parent. Are you going to offer any explanation for the arbitrary magic number? Why "Keep Carlstadt & Northfield" because they have five entries, while other have four and must be deleted?
Alansohn (
talk)
04:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, I said "spirit of WP:OCMISC" not because they are literally miscellaneous but because they suffer from the same problem. Both the argument here and the problems with miscellaneous categories are identical: that if *some* articles are in sub-categories then they *all* have to be even if that produces sub-categories that aren't useful for navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support nomination (but no objection if Carlstadt & Northfield are kept). We've meanwhile had many similar upmergers of 'people from small community' to 'people from county'. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support Such small categories just make it harder to use categories for searching, and in the case of counties people will often have moved between various parts of the county, so it is often just plain overcategorization to place them as from just one place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 13 August 2015 (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.
- 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/rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Realtors to Category:Real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional realtors to Category:Fictional real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Realtors by nationality to Category:Real estate brokers by nationality
- Propose renaming Category:American realtors to Category:American real estate brokers
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian realtors to Category:Canadian real estate agents
- Propose merging Category:Bahamian realtors to Category:Real estate brokers
- Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename to match main article Real estate broker. I looked at a lot of the American pages, and they mainly use "real estate broker". The page realtor redirects to that name already. The Bahamian category is not useful for navigation as it has only one member. The British category "estate agents" has been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_16. Canadians articles seem to use "realtor" or "real estate agent" equally, but in Canada Realtor is a registered trademark of the The Canadian Real Estate Association, so the wider term is preferred. Note: this is a follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 28 which was closed with no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - "Realtor" is not only a made-up word (coined by real estate agent Charles N. Chadbourn of Minneapolis; a court ruled in 1920 that the word "had never been used in any way whatsoever until so invented"), but a trademarked one (at least in the United States), designating members of a specific organization (and one with a somewhat sordid history) . I am stunned to see that these categories exist. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added the Canadian category following your comment. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reply - excellent; I was going to suggest you do so. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Things are a bit different today than they were in 1920 (not sure -- I wasn't around in those days). Today we have the National Association of Realtors in the United States, which I hope Wikipedia recognizes as a legitimate organization? Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added the Canadian category following your comment. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - "Realtor" is a trademarked proper noun. Not all real-estate brokers are Realtors. I'd also note that per both proper grammar and Wikipedia MOS, compound modifiers take hyphens, so the category would properly be named "Real-estate brokers". They're not nonfictional estate brokers (people who handle estate sales). -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question -- Is this the right target for the Bahamas. These were a British colony and presumably used British land law. My recollection is that the category (which we have previous discussed) contains one article, which used this American term. However is that accurate or because the article author was American and applied an Americanism? Otherwise support.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron, the nomination for the small Bahamian category is an upmerge to the worldwide category, of which the name follows the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Something Adding on to what Tenebrae said about "Realtors", it looks like "Real estate broker" can have specific legal meaning in the US. Would Category:Real estate workers be a generic term across countries? RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Well there is the broader
Category:Businesspeople in real estate
Hugo999 (
talk)
13:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- But that one also covers the separate categories for property developers and investors/landlords. "Real estate broker" is a sufficiently generic description to cover the worldwide category of estate brokers/agents/"realtors", as evidenced by its use as the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose agents & brokers are two different animals -- realtors is the combination of the two (at least in North America). Keeping the name realtors allows this category to include both agents&brokers
Ottawahitech (
talk)
04:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- @ Ottawahitech: what difference did you have in mind? The Realtor .com link given above by user:RevelationDirect says that brokers are a sub-set of agents, in which case perhaps we should rename to "agents". However, the Wikipedia main article Real estate broker generally does not distinguish them, and is unclear in the places where it attempts to do so. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I see that there was also a previous discussiion here:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28#Realtor_and_Real_estate_agents_categories.
Ottawahitech (
talk)
05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes – as stated in the nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:47, 28 August 2015 (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.
- 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. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
12:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:18th-century establishments in the Netherlands to Category:18th-century establishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:17th-century establishments in the Netherlands to Category:17th-century establishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Netherlands to Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Dutch Republic
- Propose renaming Category:17th-century disestablishments in the Netherlands to Category:17th-century disestablishments in the Dutch Republic
- Nominator's rationale: per Dutch Republic for years 1581–1795 Tim! ( talk) 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question: shouldn't C18 be kept, as it holds Category:1798 establishments in the Netherlands? – Fayenatic L ondon 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that one ought to be merged into Category:1798 establishments in the Batavian Republic, as Netherlands does not come into existence until 1815. Tim! ( talk) 05:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support (as amended). The Batavian Republic existed 1795-1815, so does not need a split by century. It should be followed by United Netherlands 1815-c.1830 and then Netherlands. All these should have a Netherlands parent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support - but no need for the Netherlands parent. We can instead use something like "Early modern Netherlands" category and "Middle Ages Netherlands" for earlier period to be under the modern Netherlands year tree. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support No need to identify the Rebublic with the kingdom founded in the 19th century. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (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.
- 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: speedy rename C2A. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Polish Neurosurgeon to Category:Polish neurosurgeons
- Nominator's rationale: Proper naming conventions for categories. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 19 July 2015 (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.
- 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. (Note that there are a number of subcategories of
Category:Ulama that were not included in this nomination.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerge Category:Algerian Sunni ulama to Category:Algerian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Australian Sunni ulama to Category:Australian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose merge Category:Chinese Sunni ulama to Category:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Chinese Muslims
- Propose upmerge Category:Egyptian Sunni ulama to Category:Egyptian Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Egyptian Salafi ulama to Category:Egyptian Muslim scholars and Category:Egyptian Salafis
- Propose upmerge Category:English Sunni ulama to Category:English Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Filipino Sunni ulama to Category:Filipino Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Propose upmerge Category:Iraqi Sunni ulama to Category:Iraqi Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "ulama" is not a defining characteristic of these articles (see WP:NONDEF). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP project Islam notified of nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question @ Marcocapelle: The Ulama article makes it look defining to me, but I can't tell if it passes WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Is there a recognized list/source of who is and isn't an ulama? RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a list or source like that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support
Deletebut per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I think it's defining but couldn't find any recognized body or list to independently provide the title. No objection to recreating if such a source can be found. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @ RevelationDirect: Do you really mean a weak delete or do you weakly support the merge nomination? Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, corrected. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The small category. Shyamsunder ( talk) 05:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- now empty. I presume this is because the contents have been moved elsewhere, perhaps to Bihar. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator moved this one. Shyamsunder, it is generally not helpful to empty categories before the end of a CFD discussion. Perhaps a merge recommendation would have been better. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Not great form a procedural standpoint, but that merge was the best outcome. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2015 (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.