- 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.
MER-C
11:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Proopse renaming Category:Saints of Roman Greece to Category:Saints from Roman Greece
- Nominator's rationale The term "Roman Greece" is not really associated with saints. This is a historical / geographic intersection. It makes more sense to limit it to its precise geography and not to put any extra cultural layer of that may not have existed at the time. Consistent with Category:Saints from Roman Anatolia. Daugher categories of Greece will need renaming if this is successful. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support, not really sure if I understand the rationale, but "from" is more appropriate anyway. By using "of" one might wrongly think that the category is limited to saints who were venerated in Roman Greece, which is not necessarily the case. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - that's what I was trying to say. :-) Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Virtually all "crimes" listed have not yet gone to trial, so the category is prejudicial. It is the category tree of Category:Refugees and Category:Crime by type - the latter contains no similar categories. Violates WP:CATDEF AusLondonder ( talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose In categories, as in everything, Wikipedia follows the sources. German chancellor pledges crackdown on criminal asylum seekers [1]; Police: Arrival of asylum seekers had no significant effect on crime statistics for 2015 [2]. The issue is in the headlines and near the top of the European political conversation. When an asylum-seeker actually does commit a crime, it gets international headlines because of the status (asylum seeker) of the perpetrator. See: Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen; 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing. It is because the proclivity to crime on the part of asylum seekers is so loudly alleged/denied/suspected/investigated/discussed that it is appropriate to have a category. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD.
- Rename to Category:Crimes committed by expatriates. Quite some of the perpetrators of the listed crimes have not been seeking for asylum. Defining and non-selective, therefore WP:NPOV characteristic is only that they all were expatriates. -- PanchoS ( talk) 11:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Asylum seeker" is a discrete, legally-defined category. All articles in category appear to involve asylum seekers; at least one of the crimes in the category (2015 Paris attack) also involved aliens in France legally or illegally, but not formally seeking asylum. The word expatriate applies to a different category, but, in common usage, expat is a term used for individuals living voluntarily outside their native country either for career purposes or personal choice - "expatriate" is not used for asylum seekers, refuges, or those who have applied for eligibility to become citizens. In other words, there could be categories for Category:Crimes committed by expatriates or Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants, but they is not the category under discussion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect: Some of the highest-profile cases listed here, such as the 2016 Istanbul bombing or the November 2015 Paris attacks aren't described to involve asylum-seekers, the perpetrator of the January 2016 Paris police station attack is described as being just "posing as an asylum-seeker", and the Palagonia double homicide's main suspect's status is unclear. All in all, the perpetrators' legal statuses are very different, rather than homogenous as the category falsely implies. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Palagonia murderer was an asylum seeker [3]; the attacker in Istanbul attacker had been registered and fingerprinted as a refugee/asylum seeker. Please check facts. before making assertions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- However, the question of whether any individual case belongs in the category is not pertinent to this discussion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a too recent issue for us to judge whether it concerns a long term non-trivial intersection, we shouldn't categorize too quickly based on daily news. Individual articles may be placed in an asylum category and/or a crime category if appropriate, of course. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Crimes can be categorized by type of crime, country and year - there's no need to start categorizing crimes by biographical characteristics of the perpetrator(s) (bank robberies committed by women?). DexDor (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- We do have such categories and lists,
Category:People murdered by Italian-American organized crime,
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes,
Category:Politicians convicted of crimes by nationality,
Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity,
Category:American mobsters by ethnic or national origin,
Category:Hindu religious leaders with criminal convictions.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Only the first item in your list might have any relevance to this discussion (the others are all categorizing criminals rather than crimes). The first one isn't exactly categorizing by refugee status of perpetrator and see WP:OSE. Type/country/year are categorizations that can be applied to all/most crimes, whereas categorizing by refugee status of perpetrator would not work well for unsolved crimes, crimes committed by multiple people etc. DexDor (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- We do have such categories and lists,
Category:People murdered by Italian-American organized crime,
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes,
Category:Politicians convicted of crimes by nationality,
Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity,
Category:American mobsters by ethnic or national origin,
Category:Hindu religious leaders with criminal convictions.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for Now if this intersection is proved to be defining, we can review this later when some of these go to trial and we have more convictions (or acquittals) and more social research. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- The literature on asylum seekers and crime is voluminous and burgeoning.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please show us some examples of that supposedly voluminous literature on the criminal record of recent asylum seekers, or asylum seekers per se? -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Swiss and South African social scientists and human rights scholars have been particularly active, especially on the abuse of refugees and asylum seekers by criminal justice authorities (Brits and Germans also publish on this) but the literature on migrants, immigrants and asylum seekers and criminality is voluminous [4] , [5] Immigration and crime needs a lot of work, and, of course, immigrant, illegal immigrant, and asylum seeker are overlapping categories, on all of which there is an ocean of social science research. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- The literature on asylum seekers and crime is voluminous and burgeoning.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per DexDor. I also think E.M.Gregory inadvertently made a convincing argument for the category's deletion while trying to rebut DexDor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis. Anyway, the categorized crimes are related to the migrant crisis, which makes the discussion above completely mute. Stefanomione ( talk) 09:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note that this target has been nominated for deletion as well, see here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per DexDor. Categorization of crimes by perpetrator is non-standard. Asylum seekers are around 1 million each year worldwide and have little in common with each other; therefore, this category, without year or country specification, could become a long list of crimes with little in common with each other. Nykterinos ( talk) 21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per DexDor, Malik Shabazz, and Nykterinos. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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 (i.e. move the decade categories) into
Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil etc. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:17th-century disestablishments in Dutch Brazil
- Propose deleting Category:17th-century establishments in Dutch Brazil
- Nominator's rationale: delete, the two categories are exactly overlapping with Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil by decade and Category:Establishments in Dutch Brazil by decade respectively, and this is due to the fact that Dutch Brazil existed for way less than a century. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- cmt please discuss the impact to all the parent categories involved, which include 'by year' category trees of various kinds. Hmains ( talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge all (including all subcats) to Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil and Category:establishments in Dutch Brazil. The whole tree contains just two articles: Dutch Brazil which only existed c.1630 to c.1655; and Olinda where the establishment consists of conquest by the Dutch and disestablishment its reconquest by the Portuguese. Since Dutch Brazil only existed in the 17th century, there is no need for a century category. There are too few articles to need a split by decade. Possibly annual categories need a double merge, also to Category:1630 in South America or Category:1630 establishments in South America. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're quite right, this is a better alternative, actually I'm now even starting to doubt if we shouldn't simply move the Dutch Brazil article to Category:1630 establishments in South America and Category:1650s disestablishments in South America, and purge Olinda as it wasn't a (dis)establishment at all during this period, thus felling the entire Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil and Category:establishments in Dutch Brazil trees. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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: rename/merge. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:15th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:15th century in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:16th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:16th century in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:17th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:17th century in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:19th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:19th century in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:Years of the 15th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:Years of the 15th century in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:Years of the 16th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:Years of the 16th century in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:Years of the 17th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:Years of the 17th century in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:Years of the 19th century in Colonial Brazil to Category:Years of the 19th century in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1500s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1500s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1530s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1530s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1540s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1540s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1560s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1560s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1570s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1570s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1600s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1600s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1610s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1610s in Brazil
- Propose renaming Category:1620s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1620s in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:1630s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1630s in Brazil
- Propose merging Category:1640s in Colonial Brazil to Category:1640s in Brazil
- Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, Colonial Brazil is just a WP reference to Brazil's history during the colonial period, while Brazil was the actual name of the country during that period. Note that the second half of the 17th century and the 18th century are already in shape. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support all -- I would suggest that Dutch Brazil be made a subcategory of Brazil. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, Category:Dutch Brazil is a child category of Category:17th century in Colonial Brazil. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename. I agree that we don't need the differentiate when we already have the date in the category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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: rename to
Category:Railway_accidents_involving_a_disregarded_signal. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD to Category:Collisions between trains
- Nominator's rationale: Leaving aside that people more familiar with WW I than trains are more likely to think of "SPAD" as a French airplane maker, the phrase signal passed at danger is a British term which isn't immediately applicable to accident investigations elsewhere, particularly in North America where different terminology and signalling systems are used. Looking at the Template:Rail accidents the focus seems to be more on the nature than the cause of accidents, so I'm suggesting repurposing this as a category of collisions between trains, which constitutes the vast majority of the cases. The few exceptions (e.g. the Newark Bay rail accident in which a train ran into the bay because a bridge was open) can be split off into their own categories. Mangoe ( talk) 15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. It's inappropriate to apply a term with a specific geographic applicability to a worldwide category. The refocusing is a good idea, too, as it's about what happened, not a decidedly limited technical jargon. oknazevad ( talk) 16:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - not all collisions between two or more trains involve SPADS (e.g. Quintinshill rail disaster). The category was created per WP:DEFINING and is specifically for those collisions where a train passed a red signal before a collision occurred. Mjroots ( talk) 19:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is (as we've discussed) that it isn't that defining. In speed signalling systems, the cause behind running an absolute stop signal is usually that the train was going too fast to stop in time; in the same sort of territory we also have rear end collisions because the following train passed a permissive stop signal but then (again usually because of speed) failed to stop short of the train in front. Simply passing a "stop" signal is typically a late stage in the course of the accident, but this is essentially a classification by cause, and in these accidents the cause is, most immediately, the juxtaposition of two trains where there is supposed to be one, or more ultimately, the circumstances and behavior that led to that juxtaposition.
- We do need an overall categorization of train-vs.-train collisions in any case. Perhaps we could have some more general category of accidents caused by failure to obey signal indications as well, but this category can really only reflect official determinations in the UK.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are plenty of examples where speed was not a major factor, including the Rafz train crash. The train still passed a red signal though. Mjroots ( talk) 06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Railway accidents after train passed red signal, avoiding extreme jargon. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not all stop signals are red.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- They ain't? What other aspect displayed by a signal means "stop" then?
Mjroots (
talk)
06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also be okay with Category:Railway accidents after train passed stop signal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- They ain't? What other aspect displayed by a signal means "stop" then?
Mjroots (
talk)
06:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not all stop signals are red.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Category:Collisions between trains which covers a quite different type of accident than that covered in the category being discussed and smacks of Wikipedia:Dumbing down. Happy to go with something Category:Railway accidents involving a failure to observe a stop signal or words to that effect. Lamberhurst ( talk) 09:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- This rename is better than I proposed earlier, yet I'd abbreviate it a bit to Category:Railway accidents after failure to observe stop signal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would Category:Railway accidents after failure to obey stop signal or Category:Railway accidents after failure to obey a signal be better? DexDor (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The former is the best, because the word "stop" is pretty crucial here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I could support a move to Category:Railway accidents involving a failure to observe a stop signal (gramatically correct), which addresses the original concerns brought up of UK-specific jargon. Mjroots ( talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Rename if Kept per
WP:OVERLAPCAT The category tree,
Category:Railway accidents by type, groups accidents by objective type of collision where this one is attempting to group it by root cause. That can be a difficult area since there are usually multiple root causes in a
Cascading failure with train accidents. Are we going to throw in weather, equipment maintenance, operator fatigue, etc. often to the same articles? (If kept, by all means rename to be less jargon-y.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's why the term "involving" is used in the category title; it allows for multiple causes.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm not sure that's a useful road to go down in the category space. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's why the term "involving" is used in the category title; it allows for multiple causes.
Lamberhurst (
talk)
21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete/Rename if kept per RevelationDirect (also possibly listify). If renaming that might best be done by creating the new category, putting appropriate articles in it then deleting the old category. DexDor (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Don't agree with deleting, it is a defining characteristic, and don't agree that WP:OVERLAPCAT applies here, afaics there isn't any other specific category that overlaps with this one. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Neither RD nor myself said that it's not (in some cases) a defining characteristic. The issue is whether categorizing accidents by cause(s) as well as (or instead of) type of accident (collision with another train, derailment, collision with vehicle on level crossing etc) is a good idea. DexDor (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't overlap with categories yet, but train accidents rarely have the single "smoking gun" cause the public expects. Even a seemingly straightforward cause like a barge taking out a rail bridge also involves poor training, fog, bad bridge design and the track circuit failed to go off. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lamberhurst and Mjroots. Jeni ( talk) 09:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- What do you think about renaming? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Are we discussing anything other than renaming? Jeni ( talk) 09:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oops I hadn't finish my sentence. What do you think about renaming to something else than proposed, like suggested during the discussion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to something. I hadn't realized SPADs were that dangerous - this is now surely the most widely-known meaning in the UK. Not sure the proposed rename is best. Johnbod ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename but not to collisions ... not all collisions are caused by SPADs; sometimes the signal isn't working properly and can't indicate danger, or (in the old days) wasn't operated properly. So ... as much as I love that term "signal passed at danger" for its very Britishness, I propose the more universal Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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: split top category to
Category:Gyms and
Category:Gymnasiums (ancient Greece), rename sub-cats. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: Per long-standing main article Gym, so basically qualifies as a WP:C2D. Current title "Gymnasiums" is ambiguous, so the alternative would be a disambiguator. Also related to Category:Gymnastics venues, so we should somehow relate the categories and have some criteria to distinguish. -- PanchoS ( talk) 12:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support When I saw "Gymnasiums", I thought "Germanic secondary school". I asked myself why this was so since "school" it's not an English usage of gymnasium. I realized that it is because no one in America has actually called one of these spaces a gymnasium since, I dunno, probably since the Eisenhower administration. Alternative would be: Category:Gymnasiums (athletic) or something similar. But Category:Gyms works for me. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
SupportHow many of these are really notable though? Johnbod ( talk) 15:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)- Oppose, at least the first one. Having just categorized Gymnasium at Delphi - that is not a "gym" (and is clearly notable. I see the ambiguity though. Category:Gymnasiums (athletic) at a pinch. The national ones are ok. Possibly a new Category:Classical gymnasiums might remove this difficulty. Johnbod ( talk) 16:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- rename US and UK categories; split Category:Gymnasiums to Category:Gymnasiums and Category:Gyms to account for both kinds of "Gymnasiums". Hmains ( talk) 03:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support original proposal, but purge Gymnasium (ancient Greece) and Gymnasium at Delphi. A separate category for the latter two articles is not needed for now, but can of course be (re)created if more content becomes available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment wouldn't Gymnasia be the proper plural form?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 06:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
MER-C
11:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:WikiProject Ignosticism to Category:Religion-related WikiProjects
- Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ignosticism, which is inactive. The editor who created it is blocked. – Fayenatic L ondon 09:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, a one-page category is all but helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I can understand Fictional duos and trios, but this seems to be taking it to an undesirable extreme. Do we anticipate entries beyond Ocean's 11? Perhaps a fictional groups category would be a better way of handling this. DonIago ( talk) 04:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support, parent categories for groups of real people only go up to Category:Quartets, I'd suggest we do the same for fictional groups of people. Merge this category to its parent and uncontainerize the parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per rules against small categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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: split per revised nomination. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:European medical associations to Category:International medical associations of Europe- Propose splitting Category:European medical associations:
- merge member articles to Category:International medical associations of Europe (a child of Category:International scientific societies of Europe and Category:International medical associations);
- merge sub-categories to Category:Medical associations of Europe (a child of Category:Medical associations by continent)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is currently explained as: "for Medical associations that are based in Europe and have a scope of operations that is Europe-wide."
- Comment wouldn't it be better to use "Pan-European" then? If these are not things that span beyond Europe, then the proposed name is bad, as it makes it appear that the scope is those organizations that are based in Europe, but is not restricted to operating just in Europe -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 07:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reverse merge -- With a few exceptions all have "European" in their title and are clearly trying to cover the whole continent (or a large part of it). None have seen the need to call themselves "Pan-European", so that WP should not seek to "pan" them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reverse merge. Agree with both preceding comments. Note that nom has created a whole tree of "international ... Europe" cats (such as Category:Academic journals associated with international learned and professional societies of Europe) and the above reasoning goes for all of them. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is a false characterization: the top Category:International organizations of Europe as well as the main article International organisations in Europe were created by other people long ago. I just found this naming scheme better than the "Pan-European" alternative, as used in other already existing trees, e.g., Category:Pan-European trade and professional organizations. If you try to upmerge it, make sure you don't stop at Europe: there's a whole world at Category:International organizations by region. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per further explanation of nominator about Category:International organizations by region, but turn Category:International medical associations of Europe into a child category of Category:European medical associations and possibly rename Category:European medical associations and Category:International medical associations of Europe into Category:Medical associations in Europe and Category:International medical associations in Europe respectively, to harmonize with each other and also to comply with the "in" in the country category names. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alt split
Category:Medical associations of Europe (with all per-country subcategories) off
Category:European medical associations, and then reverse merge
Category:International medical associations of Europe into
Category:European medical associations.
Rationale: Almost all of these associations are both "(pan-)European" by scope and by name, and therefore qualify as (regionally limited) international associations. Those merely based in various countries of Europe should rather be separated out. -- PanchoS ( talk) 10:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's wise to have Category:Medical associations of Europe and Category:European medical associations next to each other, the difference is not clear enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not next to each other, but with the latter being a subcat of the former. I'm not totally opposed to renaming the latter as "Pan-European" though. -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The established nomenclature for the necessary disambiguation is international, which only implies more than one country, in contrast to global which means world-wide. Otherwise, the present discussion should be expanded to involve, e.g., Category:International organizations of the Americas and all of the Category:International organizations by region tree. fgnievinski ( talk) 01:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, that is adequately avoiding ambiguity. As mentioned earlier, maybe change "of Europe" to "in Europe" but definitely keep "international" in the name. 14:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC) add name Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This whole category tree is a mess. Note that the Category:European medical associations has several subcats, for example: Category:Medical associations based in France, which contains a mix of local societies (a French society and a Paris society), as well as a worldwide international society. (In the latter case one might wonder, of course, whether having an office in a particular country is really a defining characteristic for a worldwide organization). The Category:Medical associations based in Germany only contains German organizations, not a single one that is European or international in any sense. Of course, being German, it is European... -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've refined the original proposal to clarify that member articles and current sub-cats should split differently. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good point about the anomalous French subcat members; the UK subcat seems okay, e.g., it's mostly for British or Royal-chartered organizations. I agree the office location is not a defining characteristic -- contrary to scope (e.g., national, European, world-wide) -- so I've taken the liberty of rectifying the few offending miscategorizations. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why Europe should be treated differently from other continents. Nor why we can't have International medical organisations based in a place distinguished, if necessary from domestic ones. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of what the title is, it is a continent and belongs in Category:Medical associations by continent Rathfelder ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that part should go to Category:Medical associations of Europe (a child of Category:Medical associations by continent). fgnievinski ( talk) 00:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that an organisation is based in a place may not be defining from the point of view of its function, but it is not insignificant. So it might be one of many international organisations based in Brussels - a significant fact in the economy of Brussels. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like Pan-European. I don't see how it is different from European. And I don't want to see a scheme which confuses people. I have set up a new tree under Category:International organizations by location which may help. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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 Jedi and Star Wars Legends novels. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose Upmerging Category:Young Jedi Knights to Category:Jedi
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT
- There is only one article ( Young Jedi Knights) in the category and the narrow scope seems unlikely to grow quickly. (No objection to recreating though if we can get up to 5 or so articles.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Skope as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Star Wars. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge -- "One franchise, one category" is my rule.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron:, how is this "rule" even relevant here? The target category,
Category:Jedi, is a subcategory of
Category:Star Wars organizations, which is a subcategory of
Category:Star Wars. That's already three categories for the Star Wars franchise, and there are many others. Are you really suggesting that everything Star Wars-related should be merged into a single category?
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
07:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- No one ever responds to my ping queries. I either make such good points that they stun the users into silence, or I don't know how to properly use this function. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Good Olfactory: The former very probably, the latter definitely :-) When you initially make a mistake in pinging and correct it afterwards, as happened to you in this case, you must also put a fresh signature after having made the correction or else it doesn't work.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see now. Thank you! Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron:, how is this "rule" even relevant here? The target category,
Category:Jedi, is a subcategory of
Category:Star Wars organizations, which is a subcategory of
Category:Star Wars. That's already three categories for the Star Wars franchise, and there are many others. Are you really suggesting that everything Star Wars-related should be merged into a single category?
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
07:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge for now per nom, also to Category:Star Wars Legends novels. Given the content of the latter category, it is quite likely that some day every book of the series will have its own WP article, so then this category can be recreated. 20:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle ( talk • contribs)
- Upmerge no reason to have a one page category here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.