< October 9 October 11 >

October 10

History of Brunswick/Braunschweig

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 English name Category:History of Brunswick. Although there are objections which have not been withdrawn, they have all been answered. Rather than combine two versions of the name in the new category title, which would not be standard in Wikipedia, the German name should be kept as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge. The larger amount of Brunswick history articles are in the more specific Category:Duchy of Brunswick and Category:Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg categories. So the both nominated categories are really for 'miscellaneous' articles of the history of Brunswick. While formally Category:History of Brunswick is for the history of the region and Category:History of Braunschweig is for the history of the town, keeping them separate is both semantically confusing (Braunschweig=Brunswick) and practically unnecessary (because it is hard to distinguish between region and city). Note that I'm neutral about the merge direction, I've tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no - there is no difference in meaning between Braunschweig and Brunswick. Brunswick is the English name for Braunschweig (both for the city and the former state). In 19th century (or older) English language works, both are simply referred to as Brunswick (which makes it sometimes hard to figure out if they mean the city or the state - I have fixed quite a few links on articles where the editor had mixed up the do due to his sources being ambigous). However, today it seems to have become more common to use the German name for the city in English (see the talkpage of the city, there have been a few discussion to move the article to Brunswick). The name is still used for the states of Brunswick, since they have been de facto abolished almost a century ago (de jure only in 1946) and are mostly talked about in history texts (in books on medieval history the city is also still often called Brunswick). Saying that there is a difference in meaning between Braunschweig and Brunswick borders on WP:OR. The article Brunswick Land should probably also be moved to Braunschweiger Land - a google search for "the Brunswick Land" gives mostly results for Brunswick, USA while "the Braunschweiger Land" gives some reliable sources (although mostly from non-native speakers):
http://www.europeangeoparks.org/?page_id=470
http://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/artno/186046400/Geowissenschaftliche_Untersuchungen_zur_Eignung_von_tonigenSedimenten_und_Sedimentgesteinen_als_Deponieuntergrundim_Braunschweiger_Land
http://www.dw.com/en/braunschweig-region-rich-in-history/a-16643696
http://www.niedersachsen-tourism.com/on-tour-in-helmstedt-1
http://web.rgzm.de/publikationen/verlagsprogramm/zeitschriften/archaeologisches-korrespondenzblatt/pm/article/menschliche-skelettreste-und-mehrstufige-teilbestattungen-der-aunjetitzer-kultur-im-nordharzvorland.html
Having History of Braunschweig as a subcategory of History of Brunswick doesn't really fit - this would give the impression that there is a difference in meaning between Brunswick and Braunschweig. And practically, many, if not most, articles should be both in the categories for the history of the city and the state. As I said, the German wikipedia, which has many, many more articles and sub-categories on the subject doesn't make the distinction: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Braunschweigische_Geschichte
I am pretty sure, that the English language wikipedia will never reach such an amount of articles on the topic, so splitting the few articles that are there only adds confusion where to put individual articles. Alexpostfacto (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Keep as Category:History of Brunswick and Category:History of Brunswick (city). I had realised that Braunschweig was the German spelling of a city that has a slightly different English name. The city of Brunswick is a small portion of the Duchy and other entities, so that they should not be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The former Duchy of Brunswick (the state commonly referred to as Brunswick in English) is pretty much identical with the modern day metro area of the city of Braunschweig, minus a few minor exclaves. Outside of Braunschweig, the state only had a few small towns with a few thousand inhabitants at most. The Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg is larger, but was split into two states, the other is commonly known as Hanover in English. Hanover has its own category under Category:History of Hanover already, so the categories we are talking about only cover Braunschweig and its metro area. Having a category named Brunswick (city) would be impractical due to the city's article being named Braunschweig (and in the past there has been a clear consesus against moving the article). Alexpostfacto (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After thinking about it a bit more, I would say "Category:History of Braunschweig (Brunswick)" would be a good name for a category. It would fit both the historic states as the post-war history of the region (so articles like Braunschweig (region) or Wunder von Lengede could fit in there), and it would also be suitable for articles on the history of the city (since I still think a country that only had one city is a case where you can't clearly seperate state and city history). Alexpostfacto (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case of a duplicate name I have a weak preference for a reversal, Category: History of Brunswick (Braunschweig), in order to prioritize the English historical name in the name of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's a history category, I wouldn't have a problem with this either. Personally I lean towards my suggestion, since the article Braunschweig gets more traffic than all states of Brunswick combined (B-L, B-WF, DoB), but either way would be fine by me. Alexpostfacto (talk) 11:54, 14 October 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.

Cardiovascular disease deaths by country

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and its subcats
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Anguilla
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Argentina
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Austria
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Bahamas
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Bangladesh
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Belgium
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Brazil
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Cameroon
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Chile
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in China
    • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the People's Republic of China
    • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Taiwan
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Costa Rica
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Cyprus
    • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Northern Cyprus
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Czech Republic
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Dominican Republic
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Egypt
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in France
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Germany
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Greece
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Haiti
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in India
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Indonesia
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Iran
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Ireland
    • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Republic of Ireland
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Israel
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Italy
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Jamaica
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Japan
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Malaysia
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Malta
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Mexico
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Morocco
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Netherlands
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in New Zealand
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in North Korea
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Norway
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Panama
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Peru
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Philippines
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Poland
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Portugal
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Romania
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Russia
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Saudi Arabia
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Serbia
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Singapore
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in South Africa
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Soviet Union
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Spain
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Sri Lanka
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Sweden
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Switzerland
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Tanzania
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Thailand
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Turkey
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in the United States
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Vatican City
  • Category:Cardiovascular disease deaths in Venezuela
Nominator's rationale: delete. After this deletion and this deletion it's about time to fell the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, you're entirely free to come up with a nomination yourself. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle, true, but I admire the way you've systematically established consensus before moving onto the next generalisation. I expect the next generalisation will be "Deaths caused by X in country Y". I hope you do not mind my "chop chop" here, it is referring to deleting and not extra pressure for you :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 13 October 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.

Category:Human resource management women

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: upmerge to Category:Human resource management people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Human resource management women to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't respect the x of y structure we now use and makes it sound a bit menial to my ears, but I don't know what's the lesser of evils. I'd frankly rather delete it but we now seem to favour retaining women/female occupation categories regardless of whether a case can be made for "definingness" or not, am I right? If so, I'm open to any rename target.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 10 October 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.

Kings of Burgundy while Burgundy was not an independent state

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. – Fayenatic London 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT and in the spirit of WP:NONDEF, these are Frankish kings (categorized as such) and German/Roman kings/emperors (categorized as such) during the periods that Burgundy first was part of the Frankish kingdom and later was part of the lands of the Roman emperors. The Frankish kings and Roman emperors aren't notable for their rule of Burgundy specifically. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For info: "ancient" kings of Burgundy (i.e. pre-Frankish) are in the child Category:Burgundian kings while 9th-10th-century kings of Burgundy (i.e. pre-Holy Roman Empire) are directly in Category:Kings of Burgundy. Neither the "ancient" kings nor the 9th-10th-century kings of Burgundy are nominated to be deleted. Only the Frankish kings and German kings/Holy Roman Emperors are nominated to be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case of the Frankish kings it's even questionable if there was a Burgundian jurisdiction at all. For this period, the article Kingdom of Burgundy only speaks of a title of king of Burgundy. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 17 October 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.

Category:School buildings destroyed by arson

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. It looks as though there might be support for a fresh nomination for a merger per user:Nyttend. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That one building of a school has been destroyed by arson ("articles on schools having buildings which were destroyed") is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the whole school. Note: There are other problems with these categories - e.g. they incorrectly place many articles in Category:Disasters. Note: Many of the articles currently in these categories don't even say that a building was destroyed (e.g. St. John's School (Quebec) or Walney School) and didn't when the category tag was added (e.g. [1])! DexDor (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, if the only alternatives were deletion or keeping, I'd say delete. School buildings aren't closely correlated with arson, and while it would be reasonable to separate out the school buildings from other buildings if we had a ton of school arsons (as opposed to library arsons, baseball park arsons, etc.), we don't have that many; it's not like separating out the schools makes navigation a lot easier. However, the existence of another category tree makes it look like we have a good deal more of these than I would have imagined otherwise, so merging it there makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The articles currently in these categories are articles about schools - not articles about buildings (nearly every article in these categories is named "... School" or "... College"). If we ever get a significant number of articles about individual school buildings that have been destroyed by fire then I would have no objection to creating categories for such articles - such categories might have the same names as these categories, but would have different text. However, it's unlikely that many individual school buildings would be notable enough. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 21 October 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 entire "Sequenced genomes" category tree

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:RECENT
When this category was created in 2009, there were only about handful of species that had their whole genome sequenced, and that certainly seemed defining back then. By 2013, there were 180 (source) and now there are thousands (source). Categorizing a species that has been around millions of years based on whether or not humans have closely researched it's genetics over the last couple years seems non-defining. Articles that are specifically about genome projects, like Chimpanzee genome project, can continue to be categorized in Category:Genome projects; this nomination just seeks to remove similar categorization from general articles like Cat, Cod, Ebola, Rice and Apple. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16 Sub-Categories
  • Propose Deleting Category:Archaea with sequenced genomes
  • Propose Deleting Category:Bacteria with sequenced genomes
  • Propose Deleting Category:Eukaryotes with sequenced genomes
    • Propose Deleting Category:Animals with sequenced genomes
      • Propose Deleting Category:Arthropods with sequenced genomes
        • Propose Deleting Category:Insects with sequenced genomes
      • Propose Deleting Category:Chordates with sequenced genomes
        • Propose Deleting Category:Birds with sequenced genomes
        • Propose Deleting Category:Fish with sequenced genomes
        • Propose Deleting Category:Mammals with sequenced genomes
          • Propose Deleting Category:Primates with sequenced genomes
        • Propose Deleting Category:Reptiles with sequenced genomes
      • Propose Deleting Category:Nematodes with sequenced genomes
    • Propose Deleting Category:Fungi with sequenced genomes
    • Propose Deleting Category:Plants with sequenced genomes
  • Propose Deleting Category:Viruses with sequenced genomes
Note: Notified Plindenbaum as the primary category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Genetics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 10 October 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.
More