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.
Comment. Looking at the German Wiki category, it has 2 articles and 2 categories. I've added the second article, but the category
de:Kategorie:Römischer Import (Barbaricum) only has 4 articles, none of which yet appears on English Wikipedia. So, as the creator, I'm inclined to support the upmerge unless other editors think the category could be further populated. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
17:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per the proposal. It's a period of history that interests me and I cannot see much growth potential, really, so it would be best to move the two articles to the wider Roman geographic category. CravinChillies 17:51, 29 August 2017 (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:English revolutionaries
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.
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as
Category:British revolutionaries immediately below. Such a category is based on opinion only and therefore is in breach of
WP:NPOV. Can you regard Cromwell, Ireton, etc. as "revolutionaries" or are they defined as Civil War Parliamentarians? If you say these two were revolutionaries, where does it end? Nonsense category which fails
WP:CATDEF, inter alia. CravinChillies 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, considering it is part of a substantial category tree and I don't see what marks out Britain/England for deletion. Certainly people like
Oliver Cromwell have been described as 'revolutionaries' and there exist a number of more recent political parties whose leaders/members decribe themselves as revolutionaries.
Sionk (
talk)
23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Surely revulutionaries are people who actively want to destroy or overthrow the current order, they don't need to have been successful (or even have participated in a 'revolution') to get the epithet.
Sionk (
talk)
20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That wasn't the point I was making, or what I said. Otherwise I'd be agreeing with you (and anyway you argued for deletion not merger).
Sionk (
talk)
19:35, 3 September 2017 (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:British revolutionaries
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.
Delete. It is based on opinion and is therefore a breach of
WP:NPOV. If it is meant to define a person's politics then surely a more accurate indicator would be their political party or movement, trade union, form of activism, etc. As you say, Thatcher could be considered a revolutionary and, at the opposite end of the British political spectrum, so could
Tony Benn but, then again, so could certain Liberals, especially
David Lloyd George. The category is nonsense, really. CravinChillies 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, considering it is part of a substantial category tree and I don't see what marks out Britain/England for deletion. Certainly people like
Oliver Cromwell have been described as 'revolutionaries' and there exist a number of more recent political parties whose leaders/members decribe themselves as revolutionaries.
Sionk (
talk)
23:24, 31 August 2017 (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:Lyrian Novels
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.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for one novel on a self-determined characteristic of its own setting. The "Lyrian" universe isn't a
WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, as witness the fact that there's only one book to file here -- by comparison, what makes the Star Wars universe notable for the purposes of a category isn't the fact that the Star Wars films are set in it, but the fact that there's a whole industry out there of derivative works by other people also set in it. Every fantasy or science fiction book that exists does not automatically get one of these just to contain itself, however -- if there were a lot of "Lyrian" novels, then this would be fine (although it would still need to be renamed to ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Lyrian novels for
MOS:CAPS reasons), but it's not needed for just one novel.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:01, 29 August 2017 (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:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western 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.
upmerge all province categories to
Category:Anglican Church of Australia and consider merging the provincial articles, which are all stubs, into a table or navigational template (as is done for the
Episcopal Church). As is typical in Anglican practice, there is next to nothing to say about the provinces other than which dioceses are members and which diocese's bishop is the titular metropolitan. This is particularly so in Australia, where the provinces are pretty small. As categories they appear to add an unnecessary level of navigation. Now, I'm not from Australia, so it's possible that there's more to provinces there than I see, but what I see is that there is only slightly more to it here than in my church.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The point is that, for the other Anglican cases I know of, the provinces are unimportant, and our categorization and articles reflect that by putting the provinces in a table and the dioceses in a single category of all dioceses in that church. The provinces don't even have articles because essentially all you can say is "these dioceses are in the province" and outside the US "the bishop of X is also the nominal head of the province" (the ECUSA provinces don't even have that). Most likely the Australian situation is the same.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:29, 31 August 2017 (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.
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Category:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia.
ℯ
xplicit
01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)