< April 8 April 10 >

April 9

Categories:Andronikashvili, Khimshiashvili and Kherkheulidze family

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 first, delete the others. The pages Khimshiashvili and Kherkheulidze now have links to both other pages not previously listed from their family categories. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Totally useless and redundant categories for petty nobility in Georgia so I suggest we delete them. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (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:Mammals of Monaco

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of categories to be merged to Category:Mammals of Europe
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, the European rabbit has been found in Monaco is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. For info: An example of a previous similar discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra. NOTE: The categorization of list articles etc should be checked - e.g. List of mammals of Sweden is in Category:Lists of biota of Sweden, but this may not be the case for all the lists. DexDor (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. The only cat I am familiar with is Category:Mammals of Scotland and I am happy for that to be merged. I have used Category:Endemic fauna of Scotland to list species only found in Scotland and this seems to me an appropriate approach. Listing common species by every country they are found in is unnecessary per arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra. Ben MacDui 07:30, 10 April 2014 (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 Candia, New Hampshire

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 12:08, 9 April 2014 (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:Presidents of the Brazilian Senate

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: split.
Pinging the nom Good Ol’factory to see if they still feel like implementing the split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. This proposal was hacked out at speedy renaming (see copy of discussion below). Essentially, what is being proposed is the creation of two separate trees, one for the Senate of the Empire of Brazil and one for the current Federal Senate. ("Senate of Brazil" and "Brazilian Senate" can refer to either of these bodies.) The proposal is that we would have categories for members of each of the two bodies, and both of these would have subcategories for the presidents of the bodies. I propose linking these through hatnotes and not having any general Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil or Category:Presidents of the Brazilian Senate to house the subcategories for the Empire and for the current Federal Senate. (If the proposal goes through, the closer can ping me and I'd be happy to implement it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion which led to proposal
  • Category:Presidents of the Brazilian Senate to Category:Presidents of the Senate of Brazil – C2B per Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as proposed @Good Olfactory: This should be renamed to Category:Presidents of the Federal Senate as C2B per Federal Senate. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the reason we use "Senate of Brazil" rather than "Federal Senate" in this context is because the Federal Senate is not the first senate that Brazil has had. The Empire of Brazil also had a senate, and it was presided over by a president too, and the Empire was not a federal state and the senate was not called the "Federal Senate". So the categories currently straddle both regimes. This nomination is just bringing the "Presidents" category into line with the "Members" category. I would think a discussion to rename both using "Federal Senate" would need a full discussion because it would limit the scope of the categories as compared to what they now encompass. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But we don't have an article about the "Senate of Brazil", and it redirects to Federal Senate. Either they are the same or the redirect should be deleted as miss-leading. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of your alternatives is the case. The current Senate of Brazil is indeed called the "Federal Senate". But that doesn't mean that the Senate of Brazil has always been called the "Federal Senate". Under the Empire of Brazil, that was not its name. It just so happens that most people who are searching for "Senate of Brazil" will probably be searching for information on the current Senate of Brazil (or the one which existed in the very recent past, which is the same one). So the redirect is appropriate. I don't understand what the problem is here with aligning the naming format of a parent category and its child category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be outside the scope of speedy, but what about splitting to Category:Presidents of the Senate of the Empire of Brazil (cf. Category:Members of the Senate of the Empire of Brazil), for the period 1822–1889, and Category:Presidents of the Federal Senate post-1889? It seems to me that, due to the political significance of the transition from empire to republic, it would be more useful to separate these two periods of the Senate's history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work ... however. We would still be left with Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil as a parent category. Presumably Category:Members of the Federal Senate could be made a subcategory of this. But if we have Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil as a parent, shouldn't we also have Category:Presidents of the Senate of Brazil to house the two subcategories? If so, that kind of brings us back to square one, and it suggests that this rename should go through, and then the contents could be distributed to the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is more along the lines of splitting Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil (and also the 'Presidents' subcategory) without retaining them as parent categories; of course, this woudl require a full nomination. Category:Members of the Federal Senate and Category:Members of the Senate of the Empire of Brazil could link to one another via hatnotes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was secretly looking for a way to avoid taking this to a full CFD, because once you do that with a (relatively) complex proposal, it either confuses other users or the only ones who comment are those who think they have a better idea. But I do think your proposal is probably the best one to be had. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (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:Reservoirs and dams in Australia

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: split/delete/rename per revised nomination. – Fayenatic London 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Dams and reservoirs are two different things. They have two dedicated parent categories Category:Dams and Category:Reservoirs. This is a follow on to this discussion. Note that not all reservoirs are created by dams. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2014 (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.

Arizona/New Mexico Territories

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/split (in some cases, merging) per nom, using "New Mexico Territory" for 1846/7. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All nominations
  • Propose renaming Category:1846 in New Mexico to to be determined
  • Propose renaming Category:1847 in New Mexico to to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Arizona and New Mexico didn't become states until 1912. According to the corresponding articles, they were under New Mexico Territory from 1850-1863, and in 1863 Arizona Territory was split off. I don't know what to call the 1846 and 1847 New Mexico categories, since they were in the middle of the Mexican-American War. (I hope I caught everything.) Kennethaw88 • talk 01:51, 9 April 2014 (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.
More