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:no consensus.
ℯxplicit 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Malaysia these are consistently separate occupations. Note, the previous nomination was closed as keep because there seems to be a clearer distinction in the United States, but that doesn't have to apply to all countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 23:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Previously rejected for the parent categories. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
We agreed that we should discuss this by country separately. In Malaysia it is clear that the two disciplines are not practised seperately. That seems to be common across the world, but not universal.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
There was no such agreement. Marcocapelle was the only editor to suggest it. The close was 'keep', without any mention of per country discussions, which I certainly do not support.
Oculi (
talk) 17:19, 12 December 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:Malaysian gynaecologists
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:no consensus.
ℯxplicit 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. All the articles are about obs/gyn
Rathfelder (
talk) 20:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose – see above. It would be nice if Rathfelder could learn how to combine similar noms.
Oculi (
talk) 22:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support, I see two categories with exactly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Malaysia these are consistently separate occupations. Note, the previous nomination was closed as keep because there seems to be a clearer distinction in the United States, but that doesn't have to apply to all countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 23:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The earlier discussion was about combining the top level, and we concluded that the two specialities did not overlap everywhere. But they appear to in Nigeria.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps someone should make it easier to combine similar noms. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Left a short explanation on how to do this on your talk page.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Previously rejected for the parent categories. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:02, 11 December 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 countries in the future
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: More concise title that makes more grammatical sense. The current title could also refer to the (in-universe) future of "modern" fictional countries. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 20:05, 8 December 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.
Years and decades in Bavaria (up to 1800)
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 as nominated.
ℯxplicit 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, these are mostly one-article categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose 1) Presumably based on wish to extend Bavaria categories to days of HRE, which seems useful; 2) By their nature "Years in..." categories may be small or even single-member, as once general subject for categorization is chosen, the parameters of category are made by the calendar rather than the general subject; reflects inherent two-dimensional spatial arrangement of Years categories.
Doprendek (
talk) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you further explain what you mean by "the parameters of category are made by the calendar rather than the general subject" and by "inherent two-dimensional spatial arrangement of Years categories"?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Because they deal with categories ACROSS TIME, divided up inexorably in that year-decade-century system that is so ubiquitous we may not notice it. Think about it. But the easiest thing is to just work with/look at a lot of categories of this type. They typically feature a breadcrumb bar that allows one to pick a [year, decade, century] that is nearby chronologically so that one can move *across time* in the category. Also--think of a category like "[Year] establishments in [US state]". ANY article that involves some entity established in the US is presumed to fall in a category of this type. And (as an extreme example) if it's been established in Vermont or Wyoming there may not be a bunch of jam-packed categories. But the presumption is that if there is an establishment of this type, then the category is created. One thing this does is to provide interesting info and links when doing cross-year navigation.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Doprendek: I see what you mean now but this idea turns out to be foolish for category trees in older eras where we often only have a few articles per century. The primary aim of categorization is to quickly navigate to related articles, and it is much more convenient to immediately navigate to articles of the same century, rather than moving from one year category to its parent century category and back to another year category. It would be quite a hassle to find just one additional article, and that same hassle would need to repeated to find every next article in the same century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Fine, maybe, and as I've acknowledged; but arguments used would have logically led to dismantling of ALL smaller categories of this type, from any year.
Doprendek (
talk) 17:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
To a certain extent you are right, the only thing that we also need to consider is that there should be some sort of consistency. So if one year has 5 articles, the next year has 5 articles, the year after has 1 article, etc. then it wouldn't make sense deleting the last year and keeping the first two years.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support -- The consensus is that about 5 articles is the normal minimum for categories. Smaller categories are normally upmerged. We often get multi-layered category threads, even with multiple threads leading by different routes to a single article. That is a hindrance to navigation, not an aid. Keep up the good work
Marcocapelle.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Not for "Years In..." type categories. Assumption is that any article may fit in one of this type, and if one or two in category so be it. This is really obvious to people who work in these types of categories. They are not just up-down. They are spaced chronologically. Because they well y'know deal with time.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"The consensus is that about 5 articles is the normal minimum for categories." Taken literally and foolishly across time-spaced categories, this will destroy thousands of categories, many, many category structures and thousands of person-hours of labor for absolutely no good reason.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
BTW I'm not really trying to go to the wall over the particular category under discussion but people are arguing from generalities that if taken seriously would result in the destruction of literally thousands of categories and numerous category structures dealing with time.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As for this particular category: Using years over decades/centuries for times long past, and deciding whether say such and such subdivision of, say, an empire merits categorization is always conceivably hairy, though I personally favor liberal interpretations, but I won't go to the wall for it.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"We often get multi-layered category threads, even with multiple threads leading by different routes to a single article. That is a hindrance to navigation, not an aid." OK this isn't really part of my main discussion here but I'll bite: Um... why? Common sense says it will help. Presumably "leading to the article" is the point, yes? Where is there an example that this would hurt navigation? If a particular article does in fact fit into parallel subcategories, why is it a problem rather than an aid to navigation? Why should the user be expected to select the one presumably best/closest-to-ideal category as determined by the category constructor to find the article she wants, rather then expect to find it in the place she picks? The only real arguments I have seen against are from those who wish to construct strict, idealist category trees where any hypothetical article fits in one and only one correct place in that tree. I don't think this is a particularly good or useful idea, especially if the purpose is to aid navigation for the user, but it does at least have a certain Ahab-like consistency. But prima facie to aid navigation...?
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As you may have noticed I don't do many of these discussions; there's probably a better way to stack multiple sections, I'm just not aware of it, so sorry if confusing formatting.
Doprendek (
talk) 05:34, 16 December 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:Oceans in fiction
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 12:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content, it contains a mix of oceans and seas subcats. It does not seem very useful to split the category in order to keep seas in fiction separate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 20:08, 8 December 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.