Category:1912 establishments in the United States Virgin Islands
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. While I'm not disputing that the name of the islands were different back in 1912, that is hardly how anyone would find a topic of interest on those islands today. If the name is the reason for the deletion, then I definitely oppose, since I believe it is the right name. We are supporting 21st century readers, not 20th century ones. Perhaps a redirect to the Danish West Indies could also be added to reflect the history of the islands.
Now that being said, I see that the category is empty. That seems like a more serious consideration for why this category should be deleted.
A really paranoid android (
talk) 11:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete -- The present category is now empty. This probably due to articles being moved to a Danish WI cat, which is crossreferenced to the US Virgin Islands tree.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (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:Medieval Iraqi people
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: merge/rename, Iraqi people is anachronistic in the Middle Ages, until halfway the 13th century Iraq was part of the Abbasid Caliphate. This nomination is related to
this other discussion. Note: a few articles are not about people of the Abbasid Caliphate, either because they are pre-Abbasid (before 750) or post-Abbasid (after 1250), in that case they may instead be added e.g. to an Arab category. So if agreed this requires a manual merge/rename (@closing admin: in that case please add this to
WP:CFDWM).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support the principle but I am not sure that "of" is the right proposition, perhaps "under", The caliphs were a ruling dynasty, not a nationality.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (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.
OECD
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.
As for the main article, it was moved after requested move discussion
here based on
WP:ACRONYMTITLE exemption (the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is not even primarily but in this case only associated with the subject. It is not ambiguous. As for the request to rename these categories, the logic is that category names usually follow the naming of the main article in that category. The OECD is not different from the
category:NATO or the
category:NASA – in both cases the abbreviation is not expanded for the very same reason.
Beagel (
talk) 18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support/Correct Venue per
WP:C2D. I agree with Peterkingiron about the article name. But, there was a Requested Move for that rename and I'm not going to disagree with that outcome here in the wrong venue. Having articles and categories mismatched hinders navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, the earlier RM should be leading here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (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:Wikipedia education userboxes
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: Both categories are longstanding, but I cannot see any distinction. As far as I can see, all user templates are userboxes. –
FayenaticLondon 13:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No strong opinion ,but seems fine. It's so many years since I worked on these. --
Chriswaterguytalk 03:47, 14 February 2019 (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:!Userboxes for occupations
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: Duplicate category to
Category:Profession user templates. This was recently created, containing two templates that are academic rather than occupational; I have recategorised one, and added the other into a suitable academic category, so there is no need to merge. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 12 February 2019 (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:1912 establishments in the United States Virgin Islands
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. While I'm not disputing that the name of the islands were different back in 1912, that is hardly how anyone would find a topic of interest on those islands today. If the name is the reason for the deletion, then I definitely oppose, since I believe it is the right name. We are supporting 21st century readers, not 20th century ones. Perhaps a redirect to the Danish West Indies could also be added to reflect the history of the islands.
Now that being said, I see that the category is empty. That seems like a more serious consideration for why this category should be deleted.
A really paranoid android (
talk) 11:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete -- The present category is now empty. This probably due to articles being moved to a Danish WI cat, which is crossreferenced to the US Virgin Islands tree.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (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:Medieval Iraqi people
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: merge/rename, Iraqi people is anachronistic in the Middle Ages, until halfway the 13th century Iraq was part of the Abbasid Caliphate. This nomination is related to
this other discussion. Note: a few articles are not about people of the Abbasid Caliphate, either because they are pre-Abbasid (before 750) or post-Abbasid (after 1250), in that case they may instead be added e.g. to an Arab category. So if agreed this requires a manual merge/rename (@closing admin: in that case please add this to
WP:CFDWM).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support the principle but I am not sure that "of" is the right proposition, perhaps "under", The caliphs were a ruling dynasty, not a nationality.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (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.
OECD
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.
As for the main article, it was moved after requested move discussion
here based on
WP:ACRONYMTITLE exemption (the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is not even primarily but in this case only associated with the subject. It is not ambiguous. As for the request to rename these categories, the logic is that category names usually follow the naming of the main article in that category. The OECD is not different from the
category:NATO or the
category:NASA – in both cases the abbreviation is not expanded for the very same reason.
Beagel (
talk) 18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support/Correct Venue per
WP:C2D. I agree with Peterkingiron about the article name. But, there was a Requested Move for that rename and I'm not going to disagree with that outcome here in the wrong venue. Having articles and categories mismatched hinders navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, the earlier RM should be leading here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (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:Wikipedia education userboxes
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: Both categories are longstanding, but I cannot see any distinction. As far as I can see, all user templates are userboxes. –
FayenaticLondon 13:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
No strong opinion ,but seems fine. It's so many years since I worked on these. --
Chriswaterguytalk 03:47, 14 February 2019 (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:!Userboxes for occupations
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: Duplicate category to
Category:Profession user templates. This was recently created, containing two templates that are academic rather than occupational; I have recategorised one, and added the other into a suitable academic category, so there is no need to merge. –
FayenaticLondon 13:26, 12 February 2019 (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.