< November 4 November 6 >

November 5

Category:Ancient Roman forts

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 all that remain within this nomination (some were removed and considered separately at Nov 6). – Fayenatic London 11:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Sub-categories
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Algeria
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Austria
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Croatia
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in the Czech Republic
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Romania
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Serbia
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Slovenia
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Spain
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Switzerland
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Turkey
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Tunisia
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Ukraine
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Bulgaria
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Egypt
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in France
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Georgia (country)
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Germany
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Hungary
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Israel
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Italy
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Jordan
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in the Netherlands
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Wales
  • Category:Ancient Roman forts in Scotland
Nominator's rationale: Redundant due to Category:Roman fortifications by country, and its subcategories, being more precise, by splitting it off by type of fort. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: It was one category, because that category alone is in the ancient roman fort tree, when it shouldn't be, regardless of whether or not the roman fort tree is deleted. The other edits are me tagging them for deletion.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: I would say that the amount of other categories make up for it, under the consensus of the last time (which I admit was far too soon), we covered that the two (being roman sites and fortifications) should be seperate, while the sites goes into much detail for obvious reasons, I dont think the fortifications should. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadbury Castle is an exception, but much of the content of Category:Ancient Roman forts in Devon consists of current villages and cities, so those should be deleted indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments below. The triple linkage by country needs to be partially replicated in the case of the English and Welsh counties. Actually, the quickest way to achieve this would be to simply rename them from Category:Ancient Roman forts in Devon to Category:Roman fortifications in Devon. We can lose the "Ancient" as the Romans haven't built any forts in a long time so the danger of confusion with the modern city is fairly limited. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: would the best way to do that be to make a seperate merge discussion or change it here? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the sub-country ones have been split off, I withdraw my 'oppose'. I support the country ones. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By Province Category:Roman fortifications → Category:Germania Inferior → Category:Roman fortifications in Germania Inferior →Traiectum (Utrecht)
By Type Category:Roman fortifications → Category:Roman fortifications by type → Category:Roman legionary fortresses → Category:Roman legionary fortresses in Netherlands → Traiectum (Utrecht)
By Country Category:Roman fortifications by continent → Category:Roman fortifications in Europe → Category:Roman fortifications in the Netherlands → Traiectum (Utrecht)
So you can see that Traiectum (Utrecht) has a triple linkage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I'll do them when I get home. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we to have this set of categories nominated for deletion every month, until we give the right answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: No, it just became entirely redundant as of recently, after the problems with the categorization were fixed. I see no argument that you have made here against it, other than some hostile words against me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Peterkingiron: I agree that the continental classification is only of interest to modern eyes. However, Wiki is built for modern eyes. Nevertheless, I also created a series of "By province" categories for the fortifications. These use a different grouping that has more to do with geo-historico categorisation (e.g. Analtolia, Levant). So I think that that addresses your concerns. With the modifications to the original nomination by the nominator, I think that the nomination can now go forward. I see no necessity for a procedural close. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: You have struck your oppose, are you now supporting or are you staying neutral? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard, I found your saying you now supported it and bolded it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My last response was a comment. Since there are few articles for most countries, I think we ought to close most continental items. I am not sure about Romania (which has a lot of articles). The British categories should be closed as no consensus, with the objective of working on a new scheme: auxiliary forts; and legionary forts in Britannia (without any split); possibily splitting out forts on or just behind Hadrians Wall and Antonine Wall; and ancient roman sites in foo <local government areas>. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for the English and Welsh forts by county has closed as "rename". I think that that decision allows this nomination to go forward. BTW, I nominated the Snowdonian forts for deletion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2016 (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:Murdered Israelis in rock attacks

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:Israeli terrorism victims and Category:Deaths by rocks thrown at cars. The three articles were already in the tree of Category:Israeli murder victims (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Oddly specific category which fails WP:SMALLCAT. Should also be upmerged to Category:Israeli murder victims. ~ Rob13Talk 23:11, 5 November 2016 (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:Star vs the Forces of Evil

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT This isn't a huge franchise with multiple articles and stuff to cross over. It only contains the main article and its episode list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular" and "a lot of merchandising" are not reasons for an eponymous category on Wikipedia. There is one, and only one, valid reason for an eponymous category: a lot of articles already exist to file in the category. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2016 (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:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Norway

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. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Norway to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe
  • Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Austria to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe added one day later
  • Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Belgium to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe added one day later
  • Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the Czech Republic to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe added one day later
  • Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the Netherlands to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe added one day later
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article, and hardly any chance of expansion if only because the Catholic Church is really tiny in Norway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the observation. From what I remember in my own country (Netherlands), while the scandal as a whole was definitely a noteworthy topic, individual cases hardly ever were a significant news item. The same may have been the case in certain other countries. I've added some more countries in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2016 (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:Radom Confederation

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains its eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem right to add Repnin Sejm and Cardinal Laws to a category with this name. Radom Confederation and Repnin Sejm are two separate political events, while not one event is the overarching theme of the both events. Insofar there is an overarching theme for the both events (as a possible basis for a category) it would rather be Nicholas Repnin or, more broadly, 18th-century Poland–Russia relations. But I wonder if we would need a category like that. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've downgraded my opinion to "weak keep". Those additional articles were already linked via the main article, and now it also has a link to the subcat Category:Radom confederates. If this is deleted, perhaps the subcat should be added to some of the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox parent category for sure, maybe not to the Catholic one. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More