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. Disputes about the title of
New towns in the United Kingdom and similar articles should be addressed separately at
RM, after which the moves of associated categories can be revisited.
(non-admin closure) –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 00:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support all top level merging, and conceptually support renaming, in order to bring it all together in one tree. Though I am open to local variations (e.g. per
WP:ENGVAR).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Further comment: per discussion below, the categories of Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK may well be kept, as a local variation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I support all except we should rename the Egyptian ones to Egyptian New Cities. The cities in that category are specifically the NUCA ones and they are official called “New Cities”. The website for them is newcities.gov.eg.
PalauanReich 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support with thanks for the effort — contra Marcocapelle and PalauanReich, I'm less open to local variations especially poor official translations. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 20:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Most/Oppose UK & HK Ones For Now Support per
WP:C2D to match the main article. There are two specific main articles though (
New towns in the United Kingdom &
New towns of Hong Kong so we should not rename UK (including England, Whales, Scotland & Northern Ireland) and Hong Kong subcats. Not sure if this is a true
WP:ENGVAR or just non-standard naming but either way those should go through an
WP:RM on those articles not CFD. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not merely
WP:ENGVAR, it is "London"-var. It was based on the name of a specific parliamentary act, and only used in London.
When I was studying
urban planning in the 1970s in the US, the London term had fallen out of favor.
When I visited Scotland in 1993, the locals were nearly up in arms about the "London parliament" (or "English parliament" with English dripping with scorn) taking over housing control from local councils; that and independence was all anybody talked (to me) about on trains and busses. (Then my relatives had me visit Culloden. Nobody had taught me about the
Battle of Culloden, even though our house had a
Fraser coat of arms at the front door.)
Hong Kong planning didn't start as "New towns"; the article says that term was only used "In the late 1960s and the 1970s". It was different earlier and is different currently. So planned communities is a better fit.
Those are all potential arguments for renaming the articles in an
WP:RM, after which these categories could be speedily renamed per
WP:C2D. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Unsure for most. Oppose for Singapore. There is
New towns of Singapore article, and it is known as 'new town' rather than 'planned communities' in Singapore.
– robertsky (
talk) 08:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The Singapore article is badly named. "New town" is a retronym based on the London planning term, was not originally applied to the first (Queenstown), and not applied to the latest (translated "forest" town). Stop trying to make all english translation into London jargon. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Whatever happened in London is something that is beyond Singapore. Within Singapore, all planned urban areas are called known as towns
[1], even the latest urbanisation that was started from 2020ish at Tegnah
[2].
– robertsky (
talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support as proposed. Thank you Aidan721 for following up on this.--
User:Namiba 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- I would prefer
Category:Planned settlements to avoid the complication of what is a city/town/village. The UK (and some others) should not be renamed at all. They were created under the New Towns Act and so should remain "towns". I would be guided by those with local knowledge as to HK and Singapore.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:20, 16 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.
Heat waves by year
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.
Support A whole tree of nearly empty categories is not part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:29, 11 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.
Category:Charles Chinedu Ndukauba
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: The actor is not notable enough to merit an article, so does not require a category.
Certes (
talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw: category now deleted: creator revealed as a sock.
Certes (
talk) 16:19, 12 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.
Category:1666 fires
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:1681 disasters in Europe
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:Fusion night vision devices
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 don't have as much experience in this realm (category maintenance) so I'm not sure. I have a few articles on fusion night vision devices partly written that I mean to publish including the envg-b and the E-COTI. Fusion is kinda the next step forward for night vision but it's still in its infancy. Looking at WP:SMALLCAT, I think this category has potential for growth as the technology progresses but I understand if it's best to merge it back in for now.
Jasonkwe (
talk) (
contribs) 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated. The only entry is not a fusion device. It is 2 technologies. "Fusion" is not mentioned in the article. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 14:33, 11 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.
Category:Cold War conflicts
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 - As this has been open almost a month, I don't see a point in relisting for more comment at this stage. Feel free to (re-)nominate one or both of these categories at editorial discretion. - jc37 09:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Almost all
Cold War conflicts were either rebellions or began as rebellions. Unless a clear criteria can be established I think we should merge this category into
Category:Cold War conflicts.
Charles Essie (
talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
A merger is better because there are many Cold War conflicts not included in the eponymous category. If it makes it easier, I'll shrink this category by removing content that only needs to be in its subcategories.Charles Essie (
talk) 17:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Marcocapelle — current contents has little to do with the Cold War other than contemporaneously. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 15:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Further comment, we should delete
Category:Cold War conflicts too. Apart from the Berlin Blockade and the Cuban Missile Crisis it is entirely subjective. I will nominate that one when this discussion is closed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I couldn't disagree more so I'll definitely participate in that discussion.
Charles Essie (
talk) 01:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Close, it's been over a week since the last reply and no one has expressed opposition to getting rid of
Category:Cold War rebellions. I think we can proceed.
Charles Essie (
talk) 05:05, 28 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.
Floods by year
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:Germanic tribes
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.
"Historical" in "
Category:Historical Germanic peoples" may be redundant, as main article
Germanic peoples already identifies all "Germanic peoples" as that they werehistorical groups of people (emphasis by me), so upmerging even that category to
Category:Germanic peoples would be a legitimate move. This would also make the "early" in "early Germanic peoples" that I suggested above redundant, however. I think for clarity's sake, we better keep "Historical" for now. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I would be in favour of that, but for that, we should probably rename the main article
List of ancient Germanic peoples to
List of early Germanic peoples first. As far as I can tell from the templates, talk page and edit history, it's a somewhat contentious article, and they don't like undiscussed moves. What we could do is put this nom on hold, and go to the talk page there to propose this, and once we succeed resume this CfR?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Best to proceed with
WP:RM for the article. But even if it does not succeed we can still have the category renamed that way. It is unusual to have different names for article and category, but not strictly forbidden. A well-known example is the usage of disambiguators which is more common in category names than in article names.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
If there is consensus to anyway 1°) merge tribes and early peoples and 1°) move away from tribes, I suggest to implement that without holding, knowing that the merged category may later be itself renamed following the result of the RM.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd rather do things right. If you participated in the RM, it might help us establish that consensus within the standard 7 days, and that should be unambiguous justification for merging tribes and early peoples, and moving away from tribes.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Alt 1. No need to differentiate between early and Ancient. 'Historical' is too ambiguous, and Germanic categories have been plagued by wrong conceptions such as considering any polity loosely associated with a Germanic-family language up to the 20th century as a historical Germanic people, such as e.g. the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg or the Thirteen Colonies.
Place Clichy (
talk) 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to fix some of this stuff and bring it back to what is relevant.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
UpdateList of ancient Germanic peoples has been moved to
List of early Germanic peoples per RM. This essentially eliminates the rationale of the main proposal, and strongly suggests Alt 1 (without renaming) is now the preferred outcome. So far, nobody seems to be in favour of Alt 2, and Place Clinchy and myself have stated objections against it. It seems the conclusion is now obvious. Thanks everyone (including at the RM and the Early Slav CfRs) for your feedback, this was a difficult one.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 18:26, 21 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.
Fires in Europe by year
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT, the categories in the 19th and 20th century mostly consist of 1 or 2 articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge all as
WP:SMALLCATs. Though this may in turn create some other smallcats for specific years that only have one fire.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:19, 17 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.
Category:Cold waves by period
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. Most have 1-2 entries per year. Not enough content on a yearly basis to warrant this tree. Merge to either decade or century cold waves as specified above and appropriate parent cats. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 14:04, 10 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.
Category:Slavic tribes
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. Ancient is a common (mis-)translation of Russian drevni, but in English
Ancient history has a specific scope that is inappropriately applied here (the Ancient period ends 500 AD, but the Slavic tribes only formed near the end of that, their important history follows it: e.g., East Slavs’ contact with the Rus from the 800s through to the second millennium).
Category:Early Slavic peoples or the like would be better. —MichaelZ. 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The term of
Late antiquity precisely applies to the period of the Slavic invasions in the Byzantine Empire, though. Antiquity ends earlier in Western Europe, but that is unrelated to Slavs.
Place Clichy (
talk) 08:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, but still these Slavic tribes’ existence was not restricted to the Ancient world geographically nor chronologically, and they are not defined as Ancient. The Severians paying tribute to the Rus in the tenth century and Kushka being killed by the Viatichi in the twelfth have nothing to do with the Ancient world and shouldn’t be categorized as such. —MichaelZ. 15:15, 16 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.
Category:A2Z (Philippine TV channel) original programming
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.
Delete/rename and recategorize. The current category has 2 entries. None are actual programs but lists so don't belong in an "original programming" category. A category for
Category:A2Z (TV channel) can be used for that.
Gonnym (
talk) 22:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Original programming by Philippine television network or channel —
WP:SMALLCAT size 2, both lists. Note "A2Z" was a film redirect, although somebody copy and pasted the TV channel, and it was promptly reverted. Even though that could be repaired, this rename is not a good idea. According to the lists, there are only 2 original programs so far, and neither has an english article. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SMALLCAT. Gonnym is right that the category does not contain articles about original programming, so merging within that tree as
User:William Allen Simpson proposed is not appropriate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:57, 12 May 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:2010 Claxton Shield
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: Isolated category with only two member pages. Siblings that held only 1 page have already been upmerged speedily (
WP:C2F). –
FayenaticLondon 08:29, 10 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.
Category:Country subdivision 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.
This a compound neologism by banned
User:Tobias Conradi, who used 150+ sockpuppets over 5+ years to spam this all over wikipedia, one of the worst cases ever seen. One of the sockpuppets was
User:Country subdivision. Before coming here, he'd been banned at the German wikipedia. These were all supposed to be fixed (and many articles were simply deleted), but sadly others linger a decade later. It is so easy to mass create categories, and so much harder to fix them.
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.