Years and decades in Armenia up to 1900
[edit]
- 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 & delete as nominated. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles in the two below categories are already in Category:1894 in the Ottoman Empire and Category:1897 in the Ottoman Empire, so there is only one merge target
- The articles in the two below categories are already in Category:1895 in the Ottoman Empire, Category:1896 in the Ottoman Empire and Category:Hamidian massacres, so there is no need for merging
- Propose deleting Category:1895 in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1896 in Armenia
- The below categories become empty after the proposed mergers
- Propose deleting Category:650s in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1280s establishments in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1280s in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1282 in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1870s establishments in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1870s in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1877 in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:1890s in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:Years of the 13th century in Armenia
- Propose deleting Category:Years of the 19th century in Armenia
- Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, all categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge All for Now Breaking up categories into a whole anemic tree just makes navigation more difficult. No objection to recreating as articles are added if we can get that decade/century up to 5 articles per year or so on average. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the principle but Keep Category:1870s in Armenia and Category:1890s in Armenia, merging years into these rather than 19th century, which I consider as going one step too far. I suspect there is little hope of populating 650s or 1280s, so that we cannot keep them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the 19th-century Armenia categories. Armenia did not exist as a clear political unit in the 19th-century, so assigning things as having happened there is not supported.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete all of these anachronistic categories as nominated. Category:1870s in Armenia contains only one article, regarding a factory established in what was then the Erivan Governorate of the Russian Empire, and is not worth retaining. All of the articles in Category:1890s in Armenia belong in the Ottoman Empire category tree. I agree with JPL, the 19th-century Armenian category tree should be eliminated altogether, but that's a discussion for another time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as anachronistic. Armenia is an article about the modern second Republic of Armenia, which exists since 1990; the first Republic of Armenia in 1918 is too insignificant to have categories for. Ancient and Middle Ages' Armenian kingdoms of Arme-Shupria, Urartu, Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), Arsacid dynasty, Bagratid Armenia and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia were not continuous with modern Armenia and were very different in terms of territory, governance, and in more ancient times also in terms of religion and ethnicity.GreyShark (dibra) 07:56, 24 November 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:1960s Romanian film stubs
[edit]Category:Healthcare managers
[edit]
- 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. There is general agreement that the current structure is sub-optimal, and the argument for administrator appears slightly stronger than the one for manager, but there is no consensus on what to do specifically. A fresh, and hopefully more focused, discussion would be welcome. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: A slightly different way of saying exactly the same thing. No need for two categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression from the articles is that "hospital administrators" and "nursing administrators" are a real thing, while medical administrators and healthcare managers are merely an attempt (OR?) to capture the hospital administrators and nursing administrators together. If I am correct we need more merging than proposed here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- it may vary from place to place, and with time. I'm not against merging in principle, but I'd like to collect more articles first. I'm engaged in a big categorisation of doctors and nurses. I'm sure many of those marked as notable are in some kind of management role. Medical managers sound to me as if they manage doctors. But in most hospitals senior doctors manage junior doctors. It's not really a seperate role. Healthcare managers sound rather wider in scope. And I'm sure the language used to describe such jobs varies a lot. Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferably Reverse merge -- Having sampled both trees, we have in both a mixture of executives of healthcare companies, of hospitals, and perhaps other institutions, including a philanthropist who founded a Hospitals Association in UK. Some are doctors; others are politicians who have moved into admin. My sampling did not come across any nurses. Hospital administrators may (or may not) also be medically qualified. IN UK we may also get executives of Primary Health Trusts, who will be administrators, but probably not medically qualified (and mostly NN). I think "healthcare" best summarises the range of possibilities, but I would plain merge as the two trees are covering much the same ground. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are plenty of nurses: Category:British nursing administrators, Category:American nursing administrators. To me, "healthcare managers" sounds like a very modern (and slightly Americanised) term and rather anachronistic when applied to historical figures, which many of these people are. It also carries a suggestion (to my ears, at least) of only applying to career bureaucrats and not to actual doctors and nurses holding these posts, which is why I prefer administrators to managers as a more inclusive term, covering both medical and administration professionals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we think the distinction between managers and administrators is generally useful? Clearly both the words used and the reality of the arrangements will vary over both place and time. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't be overly influenced by the way these words are used in particular contexts. Having looked at quite a lot of articles I do think the categories should be merged, as they overlap very considerably, but I'm not clear which word would be preferable - or indeed whether there is some other word which would include them both. Rathfelder (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need a bit more discussion. In classifying articles about doctors I have found quite a lot more who are or were notable for managing or administering hospitals or healthcare more generally. But what they actually do and the words used vary over time and place. I'm inclined to think that manager is the better term, as a little wider in scope, and in the UK at least, administration is seen as less important than management these days. Managers are at the top of the tree. Administrators are lower down. But I want a term which encompasses both.Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 5 December 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:Cool Wikipedians
[edit]
- 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) 05:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This single-user category is based on a characteristic that is broadly or vaguely defined and does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. There is no value in grouping users self-declare as "cool", and the category's sole member has been inactive since 2010. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:28, 18 October 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:Wikipedians who like to be catagorised
[edit]Category:Wikipedians with poorly-designed user pages
[edit]- Per the “duplicative” part of the nomination statement, why was the nomination to “delete” and not to “merge”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BF, I wish to register protest over this CfD, on this page. Are you telling me that the only way to do this is to initiate a DRV? A pointer to a moved discussion is OK, removing the post entirely, no. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, and I meant no offense. I took your comment as just a question and not a protest, and so thought your talk page would be a more suitable place to continue the discussion. Since you wish to keep the comment here, I'll naturally leave it be. :) I am happy to continue the discussion on your talk page. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1st-century BC Egyptian people
[edit]
- 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: As a continuation of September 2017 discussion, i'm following the suggestion of user:Marcocapelle to group pre-Roman dynasties and states of Egypt under Ancient Egypt. This comes also as followup to the June 2017 discussion which was concluded not to use "Egypt" (now the article describes the modern Arab Republic of Egypt) for classic era period due to anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 06:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative: disperse the people categories (if not Roman)
- among
Category:People of the Thirtieth Dynasty of Egypt (new category) and Category:Pharaohs of the Thirtieth Dynasty of Egypt Category:People of the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Category:Pharaohs of the Ptolemaic dynasty, to remain in line with the current category structure for people of Ancient Egypt
- and among Category:1st-century BC African people and Category:1st-century BC rulers in Africa and similar for the 2nd and 3rd century BC (note, most people of the nominated categories are in the African rulers categories already)
- Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could be misleading, as readers could confuse between the ruling class of the Thirtieth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt and the ordinary citizens (who were subjects of the Thirtieth dynasty).GreyShark (dibra) 06:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem logically correct to consider Mentor of Rhodes as a person of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty of Egypt, as he was not part of the dynasty but their subject. Same applies to the proposed cases of Didymus Chalcenterus and Horos son of Nechoutes, who were ordinary people of the Ptolemaic Kingdom (last of the Ancient Egyptian kingdoms). See Ottoman categories discussion for this matter.GreyShark (dibra) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural oppose renaming to Category:1st century BC in Ancient Egypt and likewise the two nominated siblings. If these ought to be renamed, then all centuries of Ancient Egypt should be nominated for renaming simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment am minded to support the nom's principle. I also prefer "Egyptian people" to "Thirtieth Dynasty". But Marco is correct that all century cats should be renamed to "Ancient Egypt". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, last time the issue was with Ptolemaic Kingdom and Marco himself suggested Ancient Egypt as alternative target. Maybe 4th century BC is also relevant, so i can add this. If this nomination goes well, then naturally we can also consider all preceding categories for proper rename, but let's gain consensus for Ptolemaic period first.GreySark (dibra) 15:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- Adding "Roman" or "Ancient" to Egypt adds nothing: it is all the same place. "Ancient" is certainly inappropriate as it covers 2500 years of history. If we are not going to split by dynasty or century, we might split into Old, Middle, New, and Ptolemaic Kingdoms and two Intermediate Periods between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm actually sympathizing with Peterkingiron's argument. What is "same" after all? I don't think that medieval France and 21st-century France are the same either but we keep them together in a category tree primarily based on a common name and a (partially) common location. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 25 October 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.