March 5
Category:Art of the Passion
- 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 and merge (
non-admin closure).
User:Fayenatic london, please check the implementation of the closure.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Art of the Passion to Category:Passion of Jesus in art
- Propose manually merging Category:Passion (Christianity) to Category:Passion of Jesus in art
- Nominator's rationale: To match the article Passion of Jesus and category names such as Category:Crucifixion of Jesus in art. The parent Category:Passion (Christianity) is not needed, as the article Passion of Jesus can be manually linked to and from the category, and the rest of the contents are representations in various arts. (Its parent categories and interwiki links may need careful handling; I am willing to undertake this.) – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Much clearer scope when actually whose passion this is about. Dimadick ( talk) 21:41, 8 March 2017 (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.
Note from closer: after having closed the discussion above, a further discussion about these categories started (details see talk page) leading to a new consensus about undoing the downmerge of the parent category Category:Passion (Christianity) and instead renaming it, and in addition moving some of the content that was in the child category, insofar not about visual arts, to the recreated parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 07:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s in the Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:320s establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s establishments in the Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:324 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 in the Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:324 establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 establishments in the Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:325 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:325 in the Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: Since Byzantine Empire was formed on May 330, any previous mention of it is anachronistic. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support, they called themselves Roman Empire and assigning a starting date in hindsight is therefore a bit arbitrary. Alternative starting years are 337, 395 and 476. But anything before 330 is definitely incorrect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Iranian people of Albanian descent
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: The original member was Shahnaz Pahlavi, added by user:LouisAragon ( [1]). The article stated that "her ancestry includes Circassian, Persian, French, Turkish, Albanian and Azerbaijani", but that does not mean that they are all defining. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Climbing magazines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep for now without prejudice to a later delete nomination in line with the discussion below (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Climbing magazines to Category:Mountaineering magazines
- Nominator's rationale: The name 'Mountaineering magazines' is more inclusive and better covers the content of the magazines included. Eleassar my talk 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Query - would it be better to have both Category:Climbing magazines and Category:Mountaineering magazines (linked in the same way that Category:Climbing and Category:Mountaineering are)? DexDor (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would be ok, but I prefer a single comprehensive category to two smaller ones with very limited numbers of articles. --
Eleassar
my talk 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It'd be better to create Category:Mountaineering magazines, (manually) recategorise the articles that should be in that category and then consider whether Category:Climbing magazines should be deleted (probably by a dual upmerge). DexDor (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would be ok, but I prefer a single comprehensive category to two smaller ones with very limited numbers of articles. --
Eleassar
my talk 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Necessity
- 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. I've boldly moved the offending article instead. –
Fayenatic
London 08:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity (logic)
- Nominator's rationale: rename to disambiguate, the content of this category doesn't match with the article Necessity that deals with the legal concept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (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.
Medieval men
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:7th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:8th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:9th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:10th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:11th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:12th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:13th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:14th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:15th-century men
- Nominator's rationale: delete, these categories almost entirely overlap with the clergy by century tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, This is part of a wider category structure ( Category:16th-century men, Category:11th-century women etc) - how does removing this part of the structure improve wp? DexDor (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It improves wp by no longer suggesting that we have an awful lot of content for men by century while we haven't. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: It could quickly be expanded e.g. with the rest of the century sub-cats of Category:Princes in Rus', and Category:Chinese kings. (However, no other Princes by country or Kings seem to have been sub-divided by century yet.) – Fayenatic L ondon 22:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, that's because we have monarchs by century and continent, e.g. Category:11th-century monarchs in Asia and monarch is not a gender-dependent occupation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 5 March 2017 (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.
March 5
Category:Art of the Passion
- 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 and merge (
non-admin closure).
User:Fayenatic london, please check the implementation of the closure.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Art of the Passion to Category:Passion of Jesus in art
- Propose manually merging Category:Passion (Christianity) to Category:Passion of Jesus in art
- Nominator's rationale: To match the article Passion of Jesus and category names such as Category:Crucifixion of Jesus in art. The parent Category:Passion (Christianity) is not needed, as the article Passion of Jesus can be manually linked to and from the category, and the rest of the contents are representations in various arts. (Its parent categories and interwiki links may need careful handling; I am willing to undertake this.) – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Much clearer scope when actually whose passion this is about. Dimadick ( talk) 21:41, 8 March 2017 (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.
Note from closer: after having closed the discussion above, a further discussion about these categories started (details see talk page) leading to a new consensus about undoing the downmerge of the parent category Category:Passion (Christianity) and instead renaming it, and in addition moving some of the content that was in the child category, insofar not about visual arts, to the recreated parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 07:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s in the Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:320s establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s establishments in the Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:324 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 in the Roman Empire
- Propose renaming Category:324 establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 establishments in the Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:325 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:325 in the Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: Since Byzantine Empire was formed on May 330, any previous mention of it is anachronistic. GreyShark ( dibra) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support, they called themselves Roman Empire and assigning a starting date in hindsight is therefore a bit arbitrary. Alternative starting years are 337, 395 and 476. But anything before 330 is definitely incorrect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Iranian people of Albanian descent
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: The original member was Shahnaz Pahlavi, added by user:LouisAragon ( [1]). The article stated that "her ancestry includes Circassian, Persian, French, Turkish, Albanian and Azerbaijani", but that does not mean that they are all defining. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Climbing magazines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep for now without prejudice to a later delete nomination in line with the discussion below (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Climbing magazines to Category:Mountaineering magazines
- Nominator's rationale: The name 'Mountaineering magazines' is more inclusive and better covers the content of the magazines included. Eleassar my talk 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Query - would it be better to have both Category:Climbing magazines and Category:Mountaineering magazines (linked in the same way that Category:Climbing and Category:Mountaineering are)? DexDor (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would be ok, but I prefer a single comprehensive category to two smaller ones with very limited numbers of articles. --
Eleassar
my talk 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It'd be better to create Category:Mountaineering magazines, (manually) recategorise the articles that should be in that category and then consider whether Category:Climbing magazines should be deleted (probably by a dual upmerge). DexDor (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- It would be ok, but I prefer a single comprehensive category to two smaller ones with very limited numbers of articles. --
Eleassar
my talk 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Necessity
- 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. I've boldly moved the offending article instead. –
Fayenatic
London 08:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Necessity to Category:Necessity (logic)
- Nominator's rationale: rename to disambiguate, the content of this category doesn't match with the article Necessity that deals with the legal concept. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (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.
Medieval men
- 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. –
Fayenatic
London 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:7th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:8th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:9th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:10th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:11th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:12th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:13th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:14th-century men
- Propose deleting Category:15th-century men
- Nominator's rationale: delete, these categories almost entirely overlap with the clergy by century tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle, This is part of a wider category structure ( Category:16th-century men, Category:11th-century women etc) - how does removing this part of the structure improve wp? DexDor (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It improves wp by no longer suggesting that we have an awful lot of content for men by century while we haven't. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: It could quickly be expanded e.g. with the rest of the century sub-cats of Category:Princes in Rus', and Category:Chinese kings. (However, no other Princes by country or Kings seem to have been sub-divided by century yet.) – Fayenatic L ondon 22:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, that's because we have monarchs by century and continent, e.g. Category:11th-century monarchs in Asia and monarch is not a gender-dependent occupation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 5 March 2017 (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.