Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 26

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 to Category:Areas of Belgium. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Geographical, historical and cultural areas of Belgium to Category:Regions of Belgium

Nominator's rationale: all countries in Europe have a Category:Regions of country category and so has Belgium: Category:Regions of Belgium. However, in Belgium 'region' has a specific meaning, different from other countries, as it refers to an official subdivision in three regions rather than (as in other countries) to loosely-defined historical or geographical areas. The latter, in Belgium, are in a different category, namely: Category:Geographical, historical and cultural areas of Belgium.

In order to get more consistency across countries and still do justice to the Belgian situation, I would propose the following:

1. create a new category Category:Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium corresponding to the eponymous article, as a child category Category:Regions of Belgium, and put 6 articles in this new category: the 3 official regions and three official communities;
2. remove the current subcategories from Category:Regions of Belgium, except reparent Category:People by region in Belgium to the new category Category:Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium;
3. upmerge Category:Geographical, historical and cultural areas of Belgium to Category:Regions of Belgium - which is the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Project Belgium has been notified of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Rename to Category:Areas of Belgium, with the explanation that it is for "Geographical, historical and cultural areas" being provided in a headnote. Since "regions" has a specific legal meaning in Belgium, we should not use that for other potential meanings of region. However, that should not result in any knock-on rename nominations, as it is for a specific Belgium-related reason. Category names should normally be brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an easier implementable solution which is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge per nomination, except for imperial abbeys which will belong in the subcat Category:Imperial abbeys disestablished in 1802–03. – Fayenatic London 19:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1803 disestablishments in Germany to Category:1803 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: Germany was the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and while there's more in the Germany category, these are all related to the end of the HRE. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, because this discussion about a very similar category, in which also the broader problem is being discussed, is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this discussion has meanwhile been closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Imperial abbeys in Germany dissolved in 1803 or Category:Imperial abbeys in the Holy Roman Empire dissolved in 1803, according to the outcome of the otehr discussion. All the contents are imperial abbeys that were secularised in 1803, except one which relates to a congregation of abbeys also dissolved. That can however conveniently remain within the renamed category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The Holy Roman Empire is the contemporary designation. I have to strongly oppose Peterkingiron's proposal because it ignores that we can and most likely will get more contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative idea of Peterkingiron, merge to Category:Imperial abbeys disestablished in 1802–03. This is parented to the Holy Roman Empire tree, so we do not lose any data. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sequels. – Fayenatic London 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Midquels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category as it stands is overly-broad and unhelpful to readers. Category doesn't specify what works should be included under it either, so at minimum a renaming for clarification would seem to be in order. DonIago (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The main article, Midquel, is a section redirect. If that was flushed out more fully in a complete article, this would probably be viable. In the mean time, what is included is too subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not defining, neologism. Neutrality^talk 21:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Sequels. Not only is the main article a redirect to a section of Sequels, but that section is tagged as a Neologism. Sequel is derived from the Latin sequor - I follow, also the root in sequence. The word here is a bastard hybrid between middle and sequel. It is unfortuante that prequel has been allowed to enter the language, but we should stroingly discourage midquel and sidequel. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Primarily because I support the keeping of English a live and useful language, and oppose any attempts to make it stringent and a follower of Latin. We speak English not Latin, and do not conform our categories to that dead language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain I created the category. If the term is the problem it could be renamed something in the line of "Works of fiction that take place during a part of the time frame of a previous work of fiction." It seems to me this is unusual, and hence notable. Nekrorider (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge - there are plenty of categories that do a better job of grouping articles about things that are similar (e.g. Category:Disney animated films). DexDor ^(talk) 07:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted August 8. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by year

Additional listings below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1784 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1784 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1860 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1860 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1876 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1876 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1878 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1878 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1898 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1898 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1903 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1903 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by decade to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by decade
• Propose merging Category:1860s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1860s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1870s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1870s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1890s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1890s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1900s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1900s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by century to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by century
• Propose merging Category:16th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:16th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:18th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:18th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:19th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:19th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: None of the other states or regions within the Ottoman Empire contain their own establishments substructure and given the small number of possible categories here, it may be better to upmerge these to the Ottoman Empire establishments categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not against it, but there are two issues. First, the nomination should apply to the entire tree of Category:Years in Ottoman Syria. Second, it should also upmerge to the respective Syria categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Do you think these articles should be in both the Ottoman Empire and the Syria categories? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, the practice so far is to categorize year categories both by contemporary and by current polity. We had a huge discussion to change that for the Germany and Holy Roman Empire categories (the proposal was to categorize by Holy Roman Empire only, not by Germany) but I don't think the discussion has led to consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was for categorize by contemporary polity and then put those within the current polity history by period categories. As such, the HRE categories would be the main categories and then those would be under the Germany history by period structure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more precise: sometimes an article is in one category (HRE), sometimes in the other (Germany), sometimes in both - entirely dependent on the view of an individual editor. Anyway they're not related categories except at a very very top level. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This arises from categorising by modern states. I dealt with various Turkish categories, but then ran out of steam. Ottoman Syria covers a larger area than the current Syria, but the six subcategories all need renaming or merging to Ottoman Empire ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not have the contents to justify such a seperation. Ottoman Syria was not more distinct than other sub-units of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Ricky81682: this should be relisted along with the surrounding categories by century and decade, and all the subcats. – Fayenatic London 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Small issue: the first nomination's target is a redlink, the target should be changed to: Category:18th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this suggestion. What needs to happen is a lot of work on adding articles to establishment categories, not undermining the work that has been done to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This small issue is meanwhile outdated, there's no longer a redlink. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete without prejudice to re-creation if the template is used. – Fayenatic London 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User lkt-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category is completely empty exept for the template. I propose deleting the category without prejudice against recreating it once there are users who would be in the category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:15, 26 May 2015 (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.