Category:Recipients of the General Honor Decoration (Hesse)
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. –
FayenaticLondon 13:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (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.
Medieval Ukrainian 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete the 10th-12th, as the current contents are in the "XXth-century princes in Rus'" category. There is not yet a 9th-century category so rename the first to
Category:9th-century Rus' people. –
FayenaticLondon 13:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete as anachronistic. The content of these categories is about Rus' people, while Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians all claim to descend from Rus' people.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - grossly anachronistic.
GreyShark (
dibra) 15:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to equivalent Rus' categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:12, 9 April 2017 (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:Wikipedians from Orange County, California
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: No reason to have two differently-named Wikipedia user categories for the same thing. The only occupant of the category proposed for merger,
User:Scott Sanchez, appears from his user page to actually live in Orange County, so the distinction between being from someplace (some time in the past) and being in it (as a current residence) doesn't actually make a difference in this case. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per nominator.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 15:00, 7 April 2017 (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:Rulers of Kievan Rus'
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 in order to clarify that this is for princes of Kiev proper rather than for princes in the entire Kievan Rus' federation of principalities.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: That's a fair comment. I was looking for some name to disambiguate this category from e.g.
Category:12th-century princes in Kievan Rus' which contains princes of any small principality in the wider Kievan Rus' region. To be more precise the latter could be called
Category:12th-century rulers of Kievan Rus' principalities. In contrast, the nominated category is clearly for rulers of the early undivided principality with Kiev as its capital. It should be noted that while
Kievan Rus' has become the common name, it is also merely a modern historiographic name while the rulers at the time simply called themselves princes and grand princes (or dukes and grand dukes, dependent on translation) of Kiev.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (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.
Princes in Rus'
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. –
FayenaticLondon 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename, since princes (aka dukes) are better off in a polity category than in an ethnicity category. See
Rus' people and
Kievan Rus' for more information. This is follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - this indeed was Kievan Rus.
GreyShark (
dibra) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. As Greyshark09 has observed, Kievan Rus' is the correct term for the historic polity. Retrospective application of contemporary ethnicities is
WP:SYNTH if applied to a cat. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 21:33, 28 April 2017 (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:1941 in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
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 the one originally nominated, rename the set in the alternative proposal (using the full name – there is insufficient consensus to abbreviate it). 16:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Essentially refers to the same geographical location in the same year. Moldova is the more widely used name for the region and conforms to category naming conventions.
Alcherin (
talk) 00:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Looks like this involves a lot more categories than I originally thought - a lot of the subcategories in
Category:Decades in Moldova.
Alcherin (
talk) 18:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Revisionism. Wasn't called Moldova then. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 16:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)reply
And support alternative proposal below. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Alternate proposal: Use "in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic" instead of "in Moldova" for whole years that the area was under Soviet administration up until independence. Perhaps creating
soft redirects would also help.
Oppose - would support the opposite proposal of
Alcherin - move all to Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, since Moldova state didn't exist at the time.
GreyShark (
dibra) 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Alternative renames -- The history of Moldova is that it was part of Romania 1917-40. It was then conquered by USSR, becoming Moldovian SSR 1940-1991, and an independent republic on the breakup of USSR in 1991. This is all about the same territory. This should be reflected in the category names. The parent to all should be years in Moldova, but the annual categories for the Soviet period should be in the form
Category:1986 in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (perhaps shortened to
Category:1986 in the Moldavian SSR, while those since 1991 should be in the present form. We also have a 1917 category, presumably for adding this previously partly Russian area to Romania: I am not sure what to do with that, as it was previously (perhaps partly) Bessarabia. This follows precedent of how we have dealt with similar situations, such as Rhodesia and Zaire.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support alternate proposal per above discussion. Also I sympathize with the idea of abbreviating Soviet Socialist Republic to SSR but that should then be discussed for all SSRs.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Strongly for Moldova - the purpose of the category system is not to give a history lesson but to help people find things (and even more so to help bots and templates find things). Therefore predictability and consistency have huge value in themselves - as long as the historical entity is recognisably the same geography as the modern one, we should use the modern name because that's what people will be using as the
WP:COMMONNAME regardless of politics. Are people seriously saying that all the UK categories should be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and UK of GB & Ireland before that?
Le Deluge (
talk) 13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Move all to MSSR, this is a name that makes it clear we are referring to the location based on its boundaries at the time. Moldova is too ambiguous as to weather it refers to the MSSR boundaries at the time, or the boundaries of the current nation (wheather the de facto or de jure current boundaries, which makes the whole thing even more of a mess.)
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am now tagging the category pages listed in the alternative proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Just keep 'Moldova' per
WP:COMMONNAME, don't see the big deal in why it should be changed, same country same place, no confusion.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 04:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename per alternative nom, but the target may be conveniently abbreviated to
Category:1941 in the Moldavian SSR (leaving the full name for a headnote), just as we use the abbreviation USSR.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (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:Dungeons & Dragons character 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.
The result of the discussion was:double merge of category, keep template. –
FayenaticLondon 16:14, 11 May 2017 (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.
Baptist churches in London boroughs
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: These are small categories and do not aid navigation. If not merged, then rename to "Baptist churches in the London Borough of..." per the recently renamed parent borough categories. –
FayenaticLondon 12:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Support -- Most local churches are NN, so that these are unlikely to get well-populated.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (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:Fictional hermaphroditic species
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 merger a
Hermaphrodite organism has "reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes". That does not mean that the entire race is single-sex. The relevant article gives as an example the
Amphiprioninae (clownfish). A "reproductive male" can later change sex and become the female of its "harem".
Dimadick (
talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)reply
But does this apply to the two articles that are in this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
One is about a species, the other about an individual character.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I mean does it apply that the species and the character in this category can later change gender? That was your point, after all. The article
Hutt (Star Wars) says they reproduce without sex, that doesn't quite imply a possible change of gender, even less it implies hermaphroditism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added
Hermat which more clearly belongs, albeit being less notable. –
FayenaticLondon 08:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I expect that there is potential for this category to grow, given the level of cultural interest in gender issues. I have also added
Trill symbiont, a species that melds with hosts of either gender. –
FayenaticLondon 23:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Fictional species and races as far as I can tell this only has 2 articles that really belong here. The article on Jabba the Hutt does not belong, since it is not meant to categorize articles on fictional individuals who are hermaphoditic, but to categorize articles on species that are such, so articles on characters do not belong here at all.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's consensus against the merger that was originally proposed, but further discussion is needed about the alternative proposal. ~
Rob13Talk 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
Rob13Talk 12:02, 6 April 2017 (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.