July 7
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs
- Propose merging Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:12th-century caliphs, and Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
- Propose merging Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:13th-century caliphs, and Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa
- Nominator's rationale: Recommended by
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk ·
contribs) in
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.
- Triple merge per my reasoning above. Thanks LP! NLeeuw ( talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, the merge will result in 10 articles directly in Category:13th-century caliphs while they have something more specific in common. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors
- Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. ( t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:18th century in Mozambique
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking?
Mason (
talk)
00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking?
Mason (
talk)
00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess
Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g.
Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that
Marcocapelle removed some content from
Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g.
Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".
[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within
Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is
Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to
Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of
Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
- I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
- Ah. I've just found
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? –
Fayenatic
London
21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just
Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique,
Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and
Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
- But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
- Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just
Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique,
Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and
Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is
Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to
Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of
Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that
Marcocapelle removed some content from
Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g.
Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".
[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within
Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
July 7
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs
- Propose merging Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:12th-century caliphs, and Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
- Propose merging Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:13th-century caliphs, and Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa
- Nominator's rationale: Recommended by
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk ·
contribs) in
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.
- Triple merge per my reasoning above. Thanks LP! NLeeuw ( talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, the merge will result in 10 articles directly in Category:13th-century caliphs while they have something more specific in common. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors
- Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. ( t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:18th century in Mozambique
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking?
Mason (
talk)
00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking?
Mason (
talk)
00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess
Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g.
Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that
Marcocapelle removed some content from
Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g.
Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".
[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within
Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is
Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to
Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of
Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
- I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
- Ah. I've just found
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? –
Fayenatic
London
21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just
Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique,
Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and
Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
- But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
- Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just
Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique,
Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and
Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is
Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to
Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of
Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that
Marcocapelle removed some content from
Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g.
Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".
[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within
Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. –
Fayenatic
London
21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)