- 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 11:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear why this cat was created. The companies in it are not based in SA (some pages do not even mention SA) and it's not like there are existing "ERP software companies in country XYZ" cats, even for countries like the USA with many such companies. Categories aren't really my thing so perhaps I'm missing something. Pinkbeast ( talk) 20:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - only one (Syspro) mentions South Africa at all. Syspro is indeed based in South Africa (and accordingly categorised) but a subcat of 1 is not needed. Further they are all in Category:ERP software companies so no upmerge needed. Oculi ( talk) 10:47, 28 August 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 11:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unclear why this cat was created. The companies in it are not based in SA (some pages do not even mention SA) and it's not like there are existing "CRM software companies in country XYZ" cats, even for countries like the USA with many such companies. Categories aren't really my thing so perhaps I'm missing something. Pinkbeast ( talk) 20:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - only one (Sage Group) mentions South Africa at all. Sage Group is based in the UK, and we do not categorise companies by every country in which they have offices. Further they are all in Category:CRM software companies so no upmerge needed. Oculi ( talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (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:Housing protests. ℯ xplicit 04:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, 'struggles' is a too vague concept. There is no need to merge since all five articles are in the tree of Category:Housing by country already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Housing protests, following others in the parent Category:Protests by issue. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: the former sub-cat for South Africa was merged, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 17#Category:Housing struggles in South Africa and the former contents [1]. Some of these pages should be added back here if the category is not deleted. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: two of the five articles currently in the category are about protests that were a lot broader than just about housing. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Alt rename per Fayenatic. — PanchoS ( talk) 04:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- (as nom) As there is no support for deletion, I will support the rename instead. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:16, 16 September 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 15:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, these people do not have much in common with each other beyond the fact that most of them are astronomers. It should be sufficient to mention them in the Pluto article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete associating people by (former) planet seems inappropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (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. –
Fayenatic
London
09:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Animals of Central America to Category:Fauna of Central America
- Nominator's rationale: The two categories have the same scope and "Fauna of <region>" is the usual format in wp for such categories. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - we have articles Animal and Fauna but Category:Fauna redirects to Category:Animals. However Category:Flora and Category:Plants both exist. Is this not confusing? Oculi ( talk) 11:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, although the Fauna article appears to be about the term "fauna". Category:Organisms / Category:Biota is another similar case. DexDor (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2018 (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 and merge as nominated.
ℯ
xplicit
04:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:1915 in German South West Africa to Category:1915 in South West Africa
- Propose renaming Category:1915 disestablishments in German South West Africa to Category:1915 disestablishments in South West Africa
- Propose renaming Category:1910s disestablishments in German South West Africa to Category:1910s disestablishments in South West Africa
- Propose merging Category:20th-century disestablishments in German South West Africa to Category:20th-century disestablishments in South West Africa
- Propose renaming Category:Disestablishments in German South West Africa by year to Category:Disestablishments in South West Africa by year
- Propose merging Category:Disestablishments in German South West Africa by decade to Category:Disestablishments in South West Africa by decade
- Propose merging Category:Disestablishments in German South West Africa by century to Category:Disestablishments in South West Africa by century
- Nominator's rationale: German South West Africa was invaded in 1914. Category:1915 in German South West Africa contains the final battles; although the last German commander only capitulated in July 1915, it will be helpful and sufficiently accurate to use "South West Africa" from 1915 onwards. The disestablishments category contains only the former territory and its currency. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support as to 1910s/1915 items. However German South West Africa only existed as a polity from 1884 to 1915, though not formally abolished until 1919. It then became a Mandate territory, governed by South Africa, and then Namibia. We do not therefore need century GSWA categories (2 members) or decade categories (4 members). Where polities have changed name, the best solution is to parent them to the present polity. The parent should thus be ones related to Namibia. It is exactly the same place. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Belatedly replying to Peterkingiron: apart than the 1915 pages, there is no other content in the GSWA disestablishments hierarchy, so merging to SWA (or Namibia) is in effect the same as deletion of the parent levels anyway. I nominated them for merger to SWA because that is where the 1915 content is going. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No need to multiply chronological category trees. Related content can no doubt benefit from a double inclusion in "South West Africa" categories (themselves parented to Namibia history categories) and German colonial empire categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:11, 17 September 2018 (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: keep for now, as there is no consensus below to do away with the category, although some editors were open to possible mergers. It might be worth re-nominating this after a suitable interval, for possible merger to Category:Amorium and Category:Byzantine Anatolians. For the record, the only current members are Blaise of Amorion and Michael II; Constantine V was removed during the discussion for the reasons stated below. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Typical WP:SMALLCAT. Only a handful of people are known to have come from the city. Constantine ✍ 11:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Historically important area, with a large population. I reckon many more accounts can be included in this category.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is a Category:Amorium for the city and Category:Phrygia for the area; what there is not is many people known to have been born there. As someone who actually writes about the area and period, I do not reckon that there are many more articles to be added here. Should I be proven wrong, the category can always be recreated. Constantine ✍ 14:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, I can't imagine many more biographies will be added here, the city flourished for a too short period in a too distant past and it has never been a country capital. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Probably keep -- unless someone can suggest a suitable merge target. Deletion is liable to leave articles orphaned. I know that it is too small. We regularly merge small places in America to their county. Is something similar an option here? Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- All three articles are in the three of Category:9th-century Byzantine people, that should suffice. We seldom categorize medieval people by city, even less by country subdivision. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Why was this category so scarcely populated? We have several articles on Byzantine military commanders and rebels who used Amorium as their headquarters, and Constantine V used Amorium as his residence during the civil war against his brother-in-law (who was the one who held Constantinople). Dimadick ( talk) 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Except that the category is for "People from Amorium", i.e., born in the city. People associated with a city but not born there should be categorized at Category:City X or even Category:History of City X. BTW, discretion should be exercised with over-categorizing: someone using a city as a base in a single year, or commanding a unit there, is not sufficient grounds for putting him/her in the respective category; there needs to be a strong link between person and city, that makes the latter an integral part of the given subject, such as being its longtime governor, bishop, having lived most of one's life there, etc. Constantine ✍ 14:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Most of our "city from" categories are simply recording residence in a city, not place of birth. See for example
Category:People from Chicago.
Dimadick (
talk)
14:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to see some data to support the "most of" claim. My impression is quite the contrary, and at any rate categorization always implies, as can be seen in the Chicago example as well, being closely associated with a the category topic. Simply staying there briefly, or having a parent or grandparent from there, is not enough, per WP:NON-DEFINING. Constantine ✍ 14:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (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: relisted with alternative at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 11#Category:Free Linux distributions. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: "Free" is ambiguous as most Linux distributions are free of charge, there is only one subcategory: Free software only Linux distributions and that being more specific, this category obviously isn't needed. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 08:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support, a category only containing one subcategory is not useful for navigation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ Champion and Marcocapelle: shouldn't this be merged to some of the parents: Category:GNU Project, Category:GNU Project software, Category:Linux distributions?
- The sub-cat is already in the other parent,
Category:Free software only operating systems. I also note that by Marcocapelle's rationale, that parent should be nominated for merger to its sole parent
Category:Free software operating systems as it has no other content. If that is to happen, then do we need to keep the sub-cat
Free software only Linux distributions, or should that be merged to the nominated category instead? –
Fayenatic
London
11:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- With regard to the former, it should be merged to Category:Linux distributions, perhaps also to Category:GNU Project software, not to Category:GNU Project because that is the parent category of Category:GNU Project software. With regard to the latter, certainly agree with nominating Category:Free software only operating systems for the same reason as I support this nomination, while I am neutral about merging Free software only Linux distributions to Category:Free Linux distributions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:12, 28 August 2018 (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.