March 15
Category:Trochilidae
- 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: They seem to duplicate each other. AS sa 22:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom, or perhaps reverse merge. I personally prefer a word I can understand. Oculi (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- leaving a cat-redirect. Prefer not to reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2020 (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:Tudeh Party of Iran politicians
- 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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The term 'member' is more convenient and includes all, even those who were not 'politician' in the traditional sense: Ebrahim Golestan, Ahmad Shamlou, etc. Pahlevun (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, this is part of a category tree by occupation. Politician is an occupation (and a defining characteristic), party membership is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- A businessman notable for other reasons should not be in a category, just because he had joined the party. mere membership casts the net too wide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Marcocapelle & Peterkingiron who correctly note that mere membership in the organization isn't what's defining nor what the tree contains. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2020 (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:Biomedical engineers
- 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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: They seem to be substantially the same. Not sure which way round would be the better merge. Rathfelder (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (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:History of clothing (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 result of the discussion was: merge. There is some support for a medieval sub-cat, so after merging I will rename the page and move relevant content. – Fayenatic London 08:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:History of clothing (Europe) to Category:History of European clothing
- Nominator's rationale: Smoother flow and consistency with other similar categories (Category:History of European colonialism, Category:History of European art music, etc). Brandmeistertalk 14:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what exactly is the category's scope - would Category:History of clothing in Europe be a better target? Grutness...wha? 04:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brandmeister, Grutness, and Marcocapelle: there is already Category:History of clothing (Western fashion). – Fayenatic London 11:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in that case I would suggest merging under new name, Category:History of European clothing or Category:History of European fashion. Brandmeistertalk 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- May I offer the suggestion of repurposing this longstanding category as Category:Medieval European clothing, as that is its stated purpose, and a new category with such a name would otherwise be required/very helpful? – Fayenatic London 11:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- support merge with Category:History of clothing (Western fashion). - PKM (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes merging makes perfect sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support merging, and suggest that @Fayenatic london:'s suggestion of a specific mediaeval category could (should?) be added as a subcat. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 15 April 2020 (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:Spelling reform
- 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: withdrawn for opposition (non-admin closure). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Both of the category is about orthography reform. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "Spelling is one of the elements of orthography", hence Category:Spelling is a subcat of Category:Orthography and Category:Spelling reform is a subcat of Category:Orthography reform. If a merge is required, it should be a reverse merge, of the subcat into the parent. Oculi (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oculi is right. If you want to reduce the number of categories, keep the inclusive one, and then its categorization will remain accurate, meaning that articles about broader orthographic reforms won’t be mischaracterized as “spelling.” —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 16:14 z
- Suggestion merge both to Category:Orthography and spelling reform, since there appears to be a big overlap (spelling reform is often a major part of orthography reform). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2020 (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:Track and field athletes by club
- 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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The contents of this tree include competitors in all forms of the sport of athletics, not just track and field. The naming convention of the child categories is mixed and ambiguous: "athletes" and "athletics competitors". We need to make it clear that these categories are specifically about the sport of athletics, and not sport in general.
- This is particularly problematic as the parent clubs are often multi-sport ones with child categories for other types of athlete (e.g. Category:Fenerbahçe S.K.). It also does not help that some similarly named "X CLUB athletes" categories relate to all sports rather than specifically athletics (I will raise this in a separate nomination). I suggest we standardise the athletics club member tree to match the logical parent Category:Competitors in athletics. SFB 11:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Child nominations
- Category:Beşiktaş J.K. athletes → Category:Beşiktaş J.K. competitors in athletics
- Category:Enkaspor athletes → Category:Enkaspor competitors in athletics
- Category:Fenerbahçe athletes → Category:Fenerbahçe competitors in athletics
- Category:Athletes in Germany by club → Category:Competitors in athletics in Germany by club
- Category:Athletics competitors of Italian military sports bodies → Category:Competitors in athletics for Italian military sports bodies
- Category:Athletes in Norway by club → Category:Competitors in athletics in Norway by club
- Category:Athletes in Poland by club → Category:Competitors in athletics in Poland by club
- Category:S.L. Benfica athletes → Category:S.L. Benfica competitors in athletics
- Category:Athletes in Sweden by club → Category:Competitors in athletics in Sweden by club
- Oppose - the bizarrely named Category:Competitors in athletics is a creation of SFB rather than the result of any consensus. This nom creates a large anomaly throughout Category:Athletes by nationality (the listed categories are subcats of Category:German athletes etc). Oculi (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because is "athletics competitors" and not "competitors in athletics". --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- It should be Category:Athletes by club. There is an ENGVAR issue here. "Track and field" is an Americanism and might be appropriate as an ultimate parent if any of the children were Americans, but as far as I can see this is wholly or mainly a European category, where British English is more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose athletes do not always compete in athletics (sensu stricto). A quick google search for "great athletes" pulls up the likes of Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Michael Phelps, Roger Federer, and Pele. Great athletes to be sure, but they notably compete(d) in basketball, boxing, swimming, tennis, and soccer/association football and not "athletics" of the track & field variety. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2020 (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:Public Health Emergency of International Concern
- 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 11:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Public Health Emergency of International Concern to Category:Public Health Emergencies of International Concern
- Nominator's rationale: This appears to be a set category rather than topic category. Only Polio eradication is somewhat out. Brandmeistertalk 11:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it isn't a set category as it contains 2 topic subcats. Oculi (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Having topic subcats doesn't make it a topic category automatically. Five out of six disease articles inside the category have been classified as Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Brandmeistertalk 11:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it does. Any subcat of a set category is necessarily a set category (assuming the correct laws of logic have been followed, which sadly is very far from the case in Wikipedia). Oculi (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. An example mentioned in WP:SETCAT, Category:Cities in France contains many topical subcats, e.g. Category:Strasbourg. Likewise, this category overwhelmingly contains diseases classified as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Polio is also classified as such, so except parent article and Template:PHEIC all articles inside are PHEICs. Brandmeistertalk 12:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- REname per nom. It is covering multiple emergencies, as declared by WHO. Plural is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT It's not the emergencies that are plural but the declarations by the WHO that are plural. Each PHEIC in itself is singular; collectively they are plural. So it should be something like Category:WHO declarations of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (=do not rename), or delete, Oculi and Laurel Lodged are both right. Besides the declaration is a borderline defining characteristic of an emergency, so the category might be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:WHO declarations of PHEIC using short names (WHO, PHEIC). 94.178.234.44 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the category does not contain declarations, it contains epidemics. Apart from that, abbreviating PHEIC does not make any sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2020 (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:19th-century kings of Germany
- 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, "king of Germany" is not a defining characteristic of Napoleon II. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed him from that category because I don't see how it's appropriate. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I had added him to a category as the last King of the Romans. The category was merged to the Kings of Germany category, and then deleted. Dimadick (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there were kings in Germany (e.g., the King of Bavaria) but not of Germany; there was an emperor of Germany. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. By the 19th century the title, if it ever really meant anything, had ceased beyond doubt to have any meaning. It could only conceivably be said to have had meaning for 2 years. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2020 (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 Germany
- 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: rename, C2D per King of the Romans and C2C per Category:Kings of the Romans. This was opposed at CFDS.
copy of CFDS discussion
|
- Isn't "Kings of the Romans" highly redundant to Category:11th-century Holy Roman Emperors and so on? --mfb (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Middle Ages it is certainly not redundant. Many Kings of the Romans have not been crowned Holy Roman Emperor. In the Early Modern period it becomes much more overlapping though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Armbrust: pinging contributor of speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I had created the Kings of Romans categories, and they were all deleted in August 2019. Isn't there a rule against recreating deleted categories? Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The general rule is to not be disruptive. In this case I had nominated the categories as "merge or reverse merge", the discussion was closed as "merge" but in hindsight "reverse merge" would have been better. This nomination is meant to implement the latter after all. That is not disruptive. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2020 (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:10th-century kings of Germany
- 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:10th-century kings of Germany to Category:10th century kings of East Francia
- Nominator's rationale: rename, anachronistic title, rename to match Category:9th-century kings of East Francia. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (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:Carolingian Roman emperors
- 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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Carolingian Roman emperors to Category:Rulers of the Carolingian Empire
- Nominator's rationale: I created this category in 2015, but after the creation of Category:9th-century Holy Roman Emperors in 2018 this category lost its purpose. No need to merge to the other parent, all content is already in the tree of Category:Holy Roman Emperors. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2020 (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.