The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:YYYY Summer Olympics water polo templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1877 establishments in Transvaal Colony
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: 1877 is currently the only year within
Category:Establishments in Transvaal Colony by year. The
South African Republic (ZAR, also known as the Transvaal Republic) lasted from 1852 to 1902. In 1877 the British annexed the ZAR as the Transvaal, a British colony. However, the lead section of the article
Transvaal Colony uses that name for period of direct British rule over a larger area between 1902 and 1910. It would be clearer to rename this 1877 category as part of ZAR history. –
FayenaticLondon21:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Lists of women politicians
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Environment of Los Angeles
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: SoCal has a zillion fiddly little district/city/county borders which is fine but for ecosystem stuff like watersheds and air pollution it's not helpful. Anyway current title implies City of Los Angeles but I think we should go a bit bigger to be more inclusive; I think it's more helpful than "category:environment of Santa Monica" and category:environment of Riverside" etc.
jengod (
talk)
20:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. This was a rather contentious discussion, but most people seem to be in favor of deletion. Aside from those who explicity !voted delete or listify, there were several comments arguing that the categories are ill-defined, possibly being
WP:OCASSOC, and that not all of the listed articles mention a monarch in connection to the topic. Because of the ambiguity in scope, listification seems unlikely as well, so I have chosen deletion as the most satisfactory response.
(non-admin closure) –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄)
17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you, I had in mind to come back and add the sub-cats once I saw which way the wind was blowing. I've added the last one for Dutugamunu. One reason for "building projects" was the inclusion of
Petra, Lazica and
Category:Petra, Lazica; a fortified town is better described as a building project rather than a building or structure. –
FayenaticLondon12:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm. What about the
Arch of Hadrian (Athens)? It was built to suck up to the Emperor. It was commissioned by the government of Athens. Achaea, as a province of the empire, could be said to be a branch of the imperial government. Does that make the arch a government sponsored structure?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
23:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: "by instigator" sounds awful, but both it and the alternatives in the original proposal are equally unsuitable, simply because the contents of these categories refer to buildings constructed, rebuilt, or completed during the reign (or equivalent thereof) of various individuals, irrespective of their contributions. I'm not saying that this is an invalid categorization; on the contrary, it's a very logical one. The issue is that none of the proposed titles is an accurate description of those contents. What about "by period"—less sweeping in scope than "by era", and the contents could still consist of structures dating from the reign of individual rulers, irrespective of whether they ordered them to be built or somehow participated in the construction. An alternative might be "by reign", although in a few cases that might be inappropriate ("by reign or period"?). Unless I'm forgetting, categories can have some text identifying what should and shouldn't go in them.
P Aculeius (
talk)
12:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I applaud everyone's efforts to try to figure out a way to keep this info as categories. But we're just dancing around the main issue. All these entries need explanation in regards to their relationship to said monarch. And that equals a
list, not a category. See per point #2 at
WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category. - jc3719:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is about ruling monarchs. Category names should be short, which sometimes measn that there are too terse, but the solution is often not to rename, but to define better in a headnote. BTW
Arch of Hadrian (Athens) was presumably erected by the city of Athens, which was merely one city of the province and not its capital. Whether its was instigated (or commissioned) by Hadrian or merely in honour of him is a different question.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not a different question; ot gets to the heart of this proposal. If we cannot tell if the arch was instigated (or commissioned) by Hadrian or merely in honour of him, then what is the point of this tree structure? Better to have an article list that could properly contextualise it.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with the condition of being able to re-create the categories based on the contents of said lists. We have monarchs who are known for their building projects; for Justinian, an entire book was written to show the world what a great builder he was. It may have been exaggerated as part of imperial propaganda, but it is there, and it is a topic and categorization used by historians as well (just search for "Justinianic fortification" or "Justinianic building"). And if there is a list, then the buildings belonging to it could and should also be categorized by it.
Constantine ✍ 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
That seems like a logical way to preserve the information and provide more context, so long as persons (whether monarchs or not) associated with their building (whether by involvement or merely contemporaneous reign) link to the appropriate list or section, perhaps with a "see also" line.
P Aculeius (
talk)
14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No objection to deleting Dutugamunu as
WP:SMALLCAT. I would be inclined to move up the Roman set from "in Rome" into
Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures and rename it
Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by period; are these eras not defining for the buildings? Justinian's output is significant enough to remain categorised within
Category:Byzantine architecture. Those categories all have a lead section in an article. Mehmet's category could likewise be kept in its Ottoman parent; although his article does not currently contain a separate list, the lead says "his rebuilding program… changed Constantinople into a thriving imperial capital", and there are many instances of "built"/"building" throughout the article. Maybe the only mistake here was to build a parent structure "by monarch", which is not clear, not very helpful and not needed; just delete the top one. –
FayenaticLondon10:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Noted, but "period" is flexible enough to cover both long periods and short periods. I think it would be better to re-use that word than vary it to era/ dynasty/ reign or anything else. –
FayenaticLondon21:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I still say keep (as above) -- All these (except Dutugamunu) are well populated. Possibly rename or provide an extended headnote to the effect that they are buildings from the reign of BOO, whether built by him or not. One of the categories (?Hadrian) had a parent relating to Rome, which is incorrect for some of its content. There should be
Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures by reign. This is less than perfect for the Flavian dynasty (of 3 reigns), but will do.
Category:Buildings of Ancient Rome needs to be separate. Mehmet of course belongs in an Ottoman category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The ambiguity in the discussion above makes me conclude that this is not objective enough for categorization and should be handled in the articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Why was this relisted? — only 1 keep (Peterkingiron), most are listify and delete. Listify implies delete. Fayenatic london has a nuanced view, but agrees to delete most of them. Much respect, but not seeing support for a nuanced view. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
17:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: "Instigator" is a bad choice of words here — whatever its technical definition may be, in actual real world usage it's generally understood to mean the person instigated something bad (such as a crime or a negative incident) rather than something neutral or positive like a building. I don't know if "sponsor" is the right word either, because I don't know enough about all of these buildings to know if it would be accurate, but "instigator" carries a negative connotation that isn't consistent with what happened.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:42, 8 April 2023 (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.
Years in (the Kingdom of) Hungary
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, before 1848 it is too early to start year categories in Hungary, it merely leads to a huge set of single-article categories. This is well explainable by the fact that there was no sovereign Hungarian country between 1526 until at least 1848. The Habsburgs merely kept King of Hungary as part of their infinite list of titles but it did not have any practical meaning.
A number of nominations, especially in the 16th and 17th century, are without a second merge target because the article is already in a Habsburg or Ottoman year category as appropriate.
If the categories are kept, we should discuss a more consistent naming scheme. In the 16th and 17th century the term "Kingdom of Hungary" may be used for the strip of land (mostly modern Slovakia) that was ruled by the Habsburgs rather than by the Ottomans. But not all editors agree with or understand that nuance, see e.g.
Category:1635 establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary with establishments in Budapest.Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep a few; merge the rest -- There seems to be enough content to have categories for 1520s, 1660s, 1680s, and most subsequent decades. Merge all (or most) annual categories to these decade ones and the rest (as nom) to centuries. I am never convinced of the merits of establishment categories and do not oppose merging these to centuries, as long as they are also merged to the appropriate decade (where necessary).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 4 March 2023 (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:Members of the International Law Commission
Category:Communications units and formations of the Lithuanian Army
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.
Merge per nom, only two articles in the category. There is no large established scheme by country at all, only UK and US have their own subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:45, 25 February 2023 (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:Roman-era philosophers by origin or region
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment - I think I'm starting to see the mess that they are talking about in the other discussion. The whole "Roman-era" tree should probably go. But I think we can at least address this branch of the tree for now. And yes, some selective merging may need to be done to
Category:Ancient Roman philosophers. - jc3717:38, 16 February 2023 (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:Communist rulers
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:WP:ARBITRARYCAT,
WP:OVERLAPCAT.
Category:Rulers is currently a child of
Category:Sovereignty suggesting that "rulers" are sovereign. Some are not rulers, they were elected. Most are in parallel related categories, not aid to navigation.
Conditional supportStrong delete per the deletion of
category:Socialist rulers and
category:Fascist rulers, Marcocapelle, and taking
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT into account, which may or may not apply to the label "Communist". Note that the
template:Current Communist rulers and the
Template:Socialist rulers are embedded into the categories
Category:Communist rulers and
Category:Socialist rulers, respectively. It is already unusual to embed templates into categories, but even weirder to define "communist rulers" as "espousing Marxism–Leninism", "socialist rulers" as "not espousing Marxism–Leninism", but still have "communist rulers" as a subcat of "socialist rulers". This leads to a logical contradiction: "rulers espousing Marxism–Leninism" are a subset of "rulers not espousing Marxism–Leninism". But maybe we are meant to understand that all communists are socialists, but only socialists which espouse Marxism–Leninism are also communists (which, to be fair, is also how I understand it, but not how Marx himself used the terms "socialism" and "communism", namely as stages in a process). I reckon this is the result of a consensus reached long ago in places such as
Talk:List of socialist states, and there may be some merit to it, but it does lead to some problems in categorisation. In any case, should we decide that it does not violate
WP:SUBJECTIVECAT,
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, or
WP:OVERLAPCAT, I propose we follow the same suggestion I have made for "Socialist rulers" and "Fascist rulers" at
the CfD Rulers update 1 (proposals #18, #19, #20): Split
Category:Communist rulers into
Category:Communist heads of state (e.g.
Hu Jintao) and
Category:Communist heads of government (e.g.
Wen Jiabao). It's clear that "rulers" is too ambiguous, and we best split them out into heads of state and heads of govt. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk)
12:29, 26 February 2023 (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:Russian fascism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lithuanian neo-Nazis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Latvian contemporary art
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:External link sidebar templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ancient biography stubs
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: Stub category and template recently created for just one person. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create willy-nilly -- the required minimum before a stub category can be justified is 60 articles, and for that reason a stub category has to be approved by WikiProject stub sorting before it can be created. Since the one person here was Jewish, he can make do with {{Judaism-bio-stub}}, and doesn't need this if he's the only person in it.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series set in fictional locations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:U.S. states with multiple time zones
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Moral communities
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.