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:SMALLCAT. All of these categories have 5 articles or less and most have only 1 article. Before the 2nd millennium, there's just not going to be enough known establishments to justify by year categories. Merging up to the century categories make this tree much easier to navigate. ~ RobTalk 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support with the variations suggested on 80s. England was not united until the 10th century, under the successors of Alfred the Great. GreyShark's objection might be met by making British Isles (or Great Britain) a target. I think there is scope for several more of these to be populated better, for example the bishoprics of Lichfield, Worcester, and Hereford were all established in the 680s. On the other hand, modern scholarship is dubious of precise dates of the foundations of kingdoms as given in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is more likely to be referring to when a certain person became king.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment While I don't disagree with your arguments, the suggested renames would also expand the geographic scope. Categories with the scope of
Great Britain would also cover events in areas of
Wales and
Scotland. Categories with the scope of the
British Islands would also cover events in areas of
Ireland, the
Isle of Man,
Jersey,
Guernsey, and numerous minor islands. The relevant article does not give an exact number of islands in the Isles, but estimates that this
archipelago includes more than 6,000 islands, covering an area of 315,159 square kilometers (121,684 square miles). It may not sound that large, but this area is slightly larger than the current size of
Poland (312,679 square kilometers), and slightly smaller than the current size of
Norway (323,802 square kilometers). This may require the reorganization of several related categories.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Upmerge we do not have enough establishments for any one place before 1000 to justify splitting to the country level. Also support alternative name for 80s. England is not the right name at that point. No reason to distinguish England and Wales at that point either. In fact I am less than convinced there is good reason to subdivide the Roman Empire at all.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment An editor working on Chinese provinces left a bunch of cats as red links which came across my radar via
WP:DBR so I created before seeing this CfD. I've created them but not most of the parent ones yet, I guess the same logic would apply :
As far as the naming of the England categories goes, I'd make my usual request for category names to favour "predictability" over historical purity, look at it more top-down than bottom-up.
Le Deluge (
talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (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:CommonsHelper
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) 05:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains one obsolete page. — Music1201talk 22:54, 23 June 2016 (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:People from Puerto Rico
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. ~
Rob13Talk 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I propose reversing a merge which took place
in 2012, for a few reasons:
(1) "FOOian people" is the standard format for subcategories of
Category:People by nationality. Despite the fact that Puerto Ricans are American citizens today, "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality. This is true both historically and presently.
(2) The category is acting in a way that all nationality categories do on WP: it is not only categorizing people who are "from" the place, it is categorizing people who are "of" the place and may not have ever been to the place (eg,
Category:People of Puerto Rican descent). "Puerto Rican people" is broad enough and helpfully ambiguous enough to capture both, whereas "People from Puerto Rico" is too narrowly specific. I know such a concept might be anathema to some users who like categories to be razor precise, but honestly—sometimes ambiguity in categories that hold a lot of content is quite helpful.
(3) This is not a situation as with
Category:People from Northern Ireland or
Category:People from Georgia (country), where the subcategories fairly consistently follow the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format. The subcategories generally use "Puerto Rican FOOs" in the category situations where the standard nationality format applies. Some attempts to convert the subcategories to the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format have failed: eg,
here. In fact, on this very page we have a nomination that is proposing we delete a "FOOs from Puerto Rico" in favor of a pre-existing "Puerto Rican FOOs":
#Category:Sportspeople_from_Puerto_Rico.
Rename per nom. "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality, even if it is currently a non-sovereign nation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
REname per nom. Puerto Rican is an acceptable demonym. Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) are exceptions, in that there is no satisfactory demonym. WE seem to flip to and fro on this issue. Can we get a standard set out somewhere on this issue?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose The target makes it too unclear whether it covers people from Puerto Rico or people of Puerto Rican descent in the mainland US.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: the category is currently categorizing both, so that's probably a welcome ambiguity in this case. It's the same situation for all nationality categories—many people of a particular nationality have never set foot in the country of their nationality.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Your views on nationality are not as generally supported as you think. Beyond this, the current name puts it in line with other sub-units of the United States, which is a reasonable way to do so. I would oppose categorizing as an American a person who had never been in the United States.
Raul Labrador's children should not be categorized as Puerto Rican.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: I have written nothing about how generally supported my views on nationality are. ?? Where do you get this stuff? (You can oppose categorizing people of a particular nationality who have never been to the place as that nationality, but it's very commonly done within Wikipedia. One doesn't need to be living in a place to be a national of the place.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States but also an equivalent as another nation in North America. This situation differs, for example, from
Bavaria which is under
Germany but not its equivalent in Europe. Hence the correct categories would be Puerto Rican People but People from Bavaria.
gidonb (
talk) 03:51, 6 July 2016 (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:Photographs of the United States
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: At first, this seems natural. But in fact, the scope is so large ("photographs of people, places and things located in the United States") that the link between these images becomes really tenuous. What do
More Demi Moore and
Lunch atop a Skyscraper have in common? And is
Untitled 153 really a photograph of the United States? The photographer is American but there's no way to verify that the subject is American. Instead, I suggest upmerging most and using other existing categories to properly classify the rest of them. Note that the parent
Category:Photographs is still of reasonable size. The ones which are about photographs that are significant in the history of photography in the US can also go to the parent category
Category:Photography in the United States. Some are about people (not photographs) and can go, or already are, in
Category:Subjects of iconic photographs.
Pichpich (
talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- US is clearly a common characteristic of these items. If the target gets enough content, it too can be split by country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:32, 26 June 2016 (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:Dudley Moore
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: With the content being only a single album and two image files, an eponymous category is unnecessary per
WP:OCEPON. Neither aids nor adds to navigation. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating later if more direct content appears.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, i found some more articles which can be categorized under his name, and created a new category, for his soundtracks. if my additions are considered appropriate, then this is a keeper now.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 17:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Except for the soundtracks (as there are no actual articles about the music or the soundtracks to the respective films), they seem to be appropriate and I'm willing to withdraw the nomination or let it pass as keep. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:53, 27 June 2016 (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:Works in the philosophy of economics
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:rename because "Works about ..." is the more conventional type of name in the tree of
Category:Works.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support part of a pattern of category names by Stefanomione as works in foo that can be attributed, as much as anything, to his terrible command of English. X about y is indeed the standard, more easily comprehensible structure.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support more or less per convention.
Pichpich (
talk) 20:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment, upon suggestion of Stefaniome himself, I added four more categories in this nomination. Mind the plural -s in the last category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Jesus christ, I didn't notice that he has started trying to shape the Cfd discussion, this time by leaving instructions on the user talk pages of cooperative editors and requesting that Cfd notices be left on his user talk page so he can keep a record of what's happening to "his" categories. This is a most unwelcome development. Most unwelcome. I will no longer notify him with automated messages when and if I do nominate one of "his" categories -- and would strongly urge other editors not to, either.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. It's everyone's own responsibility (in this case my responsibility) to judge the merits of an other editor's suggestion. In this case the suggestion made perfect sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It did make sense. But he will inevitably use this interaction with editors to begin to make the case that his ban should be removed, because he has mended his ways, learnt, made so many wonderful suggestions, etc. He will cite you and others as exemplary examples of this newfound cooperation. I assure you, this is coming, sooner or later. It's not a question of if, only when.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- adding categories a day later, when there has not been much discussion seems to me acceptable, and saves the need to have follow up ones. In all cases, the suggested name is much more satisfactory.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:36, 26 June 2016 (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.
Greco-Roman
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:splitCategory:Greco-Roman Egypt. It appears it'll have to be done manually, so I'm going to list it at
WP:CFDWM if someone wants to put in the work.
Category:Greco-Roman Egypt in art and culture will be renamed as proposed. Finally, there's no consensus on the third one. There's been some good discussion, but it doesn't appear that a name has been settled upon. Perhaps a focused nomination involving just that category and options could yield a consensus? --
Tavix(
talk) 17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: split/rename as a follow-up of
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#Category:Greco-Roman_world. In practice the content of "Greco-Roman world" and of "classical antiquity" was overlapping too much, and the preference in the discussion was to phase out "Greco-Roman". The renames as proposed for the second and third category seem to narrow the scope significantly, but this is actually per current content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that the scope changes, but at least "Ancient Levant" is much more appropriate here than "Greco-Roman". I'd be open to any further suggestions though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For the third one, there's too little content to make a split in three categories. Either we should find a category name that adequately pinpoints the narrower geographic commonality of the content or otherwise we'd better upmerge this category to
Category:Ancient Near East in popular culture.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You mean there is "too little content" at this point; however the content is potentially large - I can already begin populating some of those categories.
GreyShark (
dibra) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support First two. Late Antique refers to post-400 AD or thereabouts, which is certainly inappropriate. The last is difficult: it is all about Judah/Judaea in the post-exilic/new testament period, but at times Galilee was not part of Judaea. Possibly we can settle on Judaea, with a headnote indicating a slightly broader scope.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Do you mean
Judea the geographical area or
Judea (6-135) the Roman province with
Caesarea Maritima as a capital? The first is the ancient Greek and Roman name for the southern part of
Palestine, the other a province of the Roman Empire established by
Augustus and abolished by
Hadrian following the
Bar Kokhba revolt. The area was then merged into
Syria Palaestina. A category on Judea the area could probably cover events and depictions from the relatively long history of the area. A category on the province would only cover events and depictions from the 1st and 2nd centuries, and serve as a subcategory for
Category:Roman Empire in art and culture.
Dimadick (
talk) 21:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Sounds reasonable enough, it should refer to
Judea the geographical area then, because much of the content of this category is pre-Roman province. The category name becoming
Category:Ancient Judea in popular culture in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Yeah quite similar to
Category:Ancient Levant in popular culture what I proposed earlier, adding "classical" to it. Earlier on,
User:Greyshark09 objected because Levant has never been a state but at the very least there is a
Category:Ancient Levant to which it can be parented. Besides the current name Greco-Roman Near East isn't a state either. Basically I'd be fine with every solution (1) that narrows down Near East to a smaller area and (2) that removes "Greco-Roman" (because the latter is pretty irrelevant here).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually "Greco-Roman" is relevant here because the eras and events mentioned are part of the Hellenistic and Roman eras and states, which generally cover a wider geographical and cultural scope than the city of Rome and modern Greece. It is not the only relevant term given the current contents. The main concern here however should be to define what is the geographic and chronological scope of the category. The term "
Near East" has varying definitions and the relevant article points that the term has been applied to areas currently controlled by
Afghanistan,
Algeria,
Bahrain,
Cyprus,
Egypt,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel,
Jordan,
Kuwait,
Lebanon,
Libya,
Mauritania,
Morocco,
Oman, the
Palestinian territories,
Qatar,
Saudi Arabia,
Syria,
Tunisia,
Turkey, the
United Arab Emirates, and
Yemen. The term "
Levant" generally covers areas of the eastern
Mediterranean Sea (to the east of the
Italian Peninsula), but the exact definition can vary. The relevant article points that a narrow definition of the term includes areas currently controlled by
Cyprus,
Israel,
Jordan,
Lebanon, the
State of Palestine,
Syria, and
Turkey. While a wider definition also includes areas controlled by
Egypt,
Greece, and
Libya. And the related term
Levantines has traditionally been used for an ethnic group of the Levant which adheres to the
Latin Church and whose ancestry is mostly Italian and French. It probably is already widely known, but it should be mentioned that both the Neat East and the Levant have a long history of human habitation and have went through numerous political, cultural, and military changes over the millennia. At least some highlights of this history have inspired modern works of fiction.
Dimadick (
talk) 21:31, 27 June 2016 (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:Greco-Roman relations
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:renamed as originally proposed. It seems that both the category and article could use some work, but I'm not seeing any volunteers... --
Tavix(
talk) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename to make the category name less ambiguous. By the way, in contrast to the nomination just above, the category name obviously can't go without the use of "Greco-Roman".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I've boldly moved the article and left a note in the talk page referring to this discussion, in order to have the content of the article expanded.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
How aboutCategory:Greek influence in the Roman world? The present title suggests diplomatic relations and their reverse (war), but that is not what the category is about. The article may also need renaming and the category purging.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
If we adopt
Category:Greek influence in the Roman world, then I agree that we should then move the article again and in category space we should probably remove
Category:Roman Greece and maybe even
Category:Magna Graecia as a child category. But on the other hand,
User:Dimadick rather prefers to keep the Roman-Greek wars and the Roman influence in Greece included. The question is: what should the article be about, hence what should the category be about? and it seems there is no right or wrong here. I'd prefer the original nomination as being more inclusive, but admit that is a subjective choice.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:32, 27 June 2016 (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:Water transport
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: Note that this is a tentative nomination only, with the aim of discussing the categorization, to possibly find some consensus how to better organize the content in this area. Currently neither of the two categories has an eponymous main article. Actually, the "main article" of
Category:Water transport is named
Ship transport, while the "main article" of
Category:Shipping is
Freight transport. Quite confusing. If you take a look at the content, then it is quite unclear, on which basis many subcategories are categorized in one or the other tree. Does "shipping" only refer to freight transport, and does or should it cover freight transport both on the water and in the air? I currently have no idea how to improve organization here. Normally we would follow the name of the main articles, but if they only are "best matches" rather than real overview articles on the topic, then we can't. Suggestions are explicitly welcome.
PanchoS (
talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Perhaps reverse merge -- It sounds as if neither has a satisfactory main article. The problem is that the barges used on inland waterways are not ships. We might have a split between "sea transport" and "inland water transport". Freight transport should not cover passenger transport. This probably needs more work than I have time for.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose as the nomination is incomplete. The merits or otherwise of a merge cannot be assessed without considering the name of the new category (and how it would be parented). See instructions at
WP:CFD. DexDor(talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
No need to merge, it's perfectly fine to have a freight transport category (by water) as a child category of a general transport category (by water). No objection against a future proposal for renaming, in order to align with article space, but a rename nomination should be done including a number of child categories. No objection to move some content between the two categories if that would make each of the categories more homogeneous in content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. "Water transport" is the generic term referring to all water transport, not just shipping (e.g. much inland water transport is done by boats, not ships, and would never be referred to as shipping). That should remain as the top level term. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:13, 6 July 2016 (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:Sportspeople from Puerto Rico
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.
Thanks,
PanchoS. I too would support a reverse merge if that would match the outcome above. My main concern is that there should be a merge, in whichever direction. I will tag
Category:Puerto Rican sportspeople to allow that to happen if that's the outcome. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated. It's a nationality category, and the default form is "FOOian sportspeople".
Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge The identification as from Puerto Rico is consistent with other sub-units of the United States.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Yet it is not Guamaian sportspeople for example, so your argument is weak.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: The issue I'm referring to is the format "FOOian spotspeople"/"FOO sportspeople", not whether it the specific term opted for is FOOian or FOO. "Guam BARs" is the standard for this format, not "BARs from Guam". We could use "Puerto Rico sportspeople", but it makes sense to use "Puerto Rican sportspeople" since "Puerto Rican" is in widespread use and other similar categories use "Puerto Rican". See also
Category:American Samoan sportspeople.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge or Reverse merge as long as consistent with the outcome of the defining people category above.
gidonb (
talk) 03:38, 6 July 2016 (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:European Union law scholars
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:rename, rescope and reparent a too narrow and small category. By widening the scope we can add article
Giandomenico Majone, to start with.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Obviously reasonable for a number of reasons. --
PanchoS (
talk) 17:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
European Union is as well a substantial topic and well-populated parent category. A compromise would be to keep this one but create the other one, too. Even if started with just a single subcat and another article, it wouldn't constitute a
WP:SMALLCAT, as there's sufficient room for expansion. --
PanchoS (
talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (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:Scopus indexed
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) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is already an extended discussion on this subject
here. Category creator posits that because indexing in Scopus makes a journal notable according to
WP:NJournals. However, being indexed in a database is not a defining characteristic of a journal. Many journals are included in dozens of databases. That inclusion in some of these databases makes a journal notable is besides the point. We do not categorize celebrities according to the newspapers in which they have been covered, either, even though it is that very coverage that makes them notable.
Randykitty (
talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree this is not a defining characteristic. I also see it as an unlikely way to manually search for journals. --
Mark viking (
talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (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:Divisions and sections of composed works
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I've been very critical of Stefanomione here but in this case I think his somewhat similar
Category:Narrative units -- which I've added as a subcat -- is a much better title and concept than this one. Anyway, my suggested rename would have the advantage of fitting it within
Category:Components and
Category:Intellectual works. But if there's any interest in merging with Stefanomione's, somehow, that'd be fine with me. Or even outright deletion! Most or all intellectual works divisions and sections -- i.e. short poems still have stanzas -- so maybe there's just no need for this category...? Also, as you'll see, the nominated category could use some pruning, I daresay.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The current name suggests part of musical composition, while the actual content seems wider.
Dimadick (
talk) 17:25, 23 June 2016 (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:Web of Science indexed
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) 06:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Ill-conceived category. The
Web of Science is not a database and being indexed in it does not mean much. Instead, WoS is a platform providing access to a number of databases produced by
Thomson Reuters. Some of those databases are among the most important ones in academic publishing (for example, the
Science Citation Index). Whereas Thomson Reuters maintains a database of journals included in those indexes (
see here), there is (of course) no such list for WoS.
Randykitty (
talk) 12:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment This is not correct the WOS is a combined database, the link you provided states that its 'The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science'. Further there is
specific criteria to be included in the WoS, although probably not as strong as for inclusion in
Scopus.
Jonpatterns (
talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The link to the selection criteria you give starts with "At the center of Web of Science Core Collection are three flagship Citation Indexes". If you use the Master Journal list, you won't find a single journal that lists "Web of Science" as a database that it is listed in. Instead, you will see things like [Current Contents]] or
Science Citation Index, all of which are combined in the WoS access platform. Being included in WoS does not necessarily confer notability to a journal and will, for example, not automatically result in it getting an
impact factor (only journals included in the
Science Citation Index Expanded and the
Social Sciences Citation Index are included in the
Journal Citation Reports). It all depends in which Thomson Reuters database a journal is included. For example, being indexed in the
Emerging Sources Citation Index is not considered to make a journal notable, but will still result in it being included in WoS. Compare it to a journal being included in
PubMed. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable, either. For that, inclusion in
MEDLINE (or its even more selective subset
Index Medicus) is needed. After all, OA journals can get rather easily into PubMed by being included in the much less selective
PubMed Central. PubMed is not a database proper, but an access platform (or search engine, if you prefer) that gives combined access to multiple databases (MEDLINE, PMC, and IM - and some others, too). --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree this is not a defining characteristic. I also see it as an unlikely way to manually search for journals. --
Mark viking (
talk) 19:56, 30 June 2016 (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:Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling
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: Category page states that it is named after code L81 of
JEL_classification_codes, but L81 is (currently) "Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce". We have an article
Distribution (business). so that would be the main topic for what is not covered in
Category:Sales. –
FayenaticLondon 09:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Same idea came to my mind when earlier today I added
Category:Wholesaling to
Category:Sales. Both target categories would be held together by
Category:Trade so we don't need the current intermediate level. --
PanchoS (
talk) 15:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
* Agree with your remarks. Let's just rename it, and then figure out the details. --
PanchoS (
talk) 17:44, 23 June 2016 (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 Catholic dioceses in Mauritania
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, to expand my reasoning (which also applies below), I'm basing my argument on the fact that as Roman Catholicism doesn't seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly, the utility of the search is better served by an upmerge in spite of the SMALLCAT exception. It just seems to make more sense to hit dioceses in Africa and get everything than have to drill down an extra level to get to the same point.
MSJapan (
talk) 05:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Recently discussed with a clear consensus; no new arguments. --
PanchoS (
talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy close as keep as recently discussed. If the title was "Bishop of Mauretania" I might have agreed, but it is not. I gave detailed reasons last time (q.v.).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep c'mon, we cannot keep wasting time on closed debates so closely after they've been closed.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose The reasoning behind this nomination is false. "Roman Catholicism does not seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly", I call rubbish. There are 35 million Catholics in The Democatic Republic of the Congo alone. In Ivory Coast in the 1980s the population was about 1/8th Christian, by about 2010 about a third of the population was Christian, with between a fifthed and a fourth Catholic. Catholicism has significant numbers of followers in other countries such as Uganda, Nigeria and I could list lots more. The country of Madagascar alone has 21 Catholic diocese. There is no reason to think an undifferentiated Africa makes any sense here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (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 Catholic dioceses in Djibouti
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one diocese in Djibouti. It does not need its own category.
MSJapan (
talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge The outocme of this nomination should match the one above, whether I agree with that outcome or not.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy close as keep as recently discussed. See Mauretania (above).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a good case for an exemption. A generalized Africa category is just too big and unruly.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:56, 29 June 2016 (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:Fireworks festivals in Canada
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 as proposed. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to
a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a
Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created.
PanchoS (
talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Why is this still not closed two full months later, when there isn't even a single objection to make consensus even slightly debatable?
Bearcat (
talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I presume it was relisted because of Marcocapelle's comment that seems to suggest an objection. It's been open for several months because quite frankly, there aren't enough closers handling CFD discussions. --
Tavix(
talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (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.
Croatia
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 and delete per nominator,
User:BU Rob13 ... who I will volunteer to implement the changes. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. With one or two exceptions, these are all 1-article establishments by year categories. Condensing them to centuries is far more useful to our readers. The resulting categories will typically still have less than 5 articles in them, but that's justified by the existing category tree. Deleting resulting empty categories. Scope of this nomination is up to the end of the 18th century. ~ RobTalk 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Mostly Support/Merge 1st Century with Roman Empire According to the
Croatia, "The Croats arrived in the area of present-day Croatia during the early part of the 7th century AD". The Roman amphitheatre in the 68 AD/CE category belongs in the Roman Empire.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
No opposition to this alternative for the one 1st century article. ~ RobTalk 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support with RevelationDirect's amendment. Reasonable nomination combining
WP:SMALLCATs without losing more information than necessary. --
PanchoS (
talk) 15:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I am willing to accept that there was a polity of Croatia from c.800 to c.1091 (perhaps a little later), ruled by dukes and then kings: see
List of rulers of Croatia. That article lists one rather earlier ruler and indicates that it was subsequently part of Hungary. Recent practice is that we categorise by contemporary (not current polity). It then became part of Hungary and later of Austro-Hungarian Empire (or Hapsburg Empire) which should be the merge targets for later periods.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support early merges. Also delete later categories but make sure to keep articles in appropriate categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:57, 29 June 2016 (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.