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: upmerge to both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Individual albino gorillas to Category:Individual albino animals

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one Albino gorilla known in history. [1]. The albinism and gorilla-ness of Snowflake (gorilla) can adequately be classified in Category:Individual gorillas and Category:Individual albino animals. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but not sure if this is really a merge rather than a delete and recategorize. Snowflake is an Individual gorilla and an Individual albino animal. "Individual albino gorillas" doesn't seem sustainable, but there are two existing categories for this animal. Plantdrew (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2015 (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.

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, though it sounds like an evaluation of Category:Sailors vs. Category:Sailors (sport) and how they work together may be in order. This close is without prejudice to a renomination of this specific category if it is part of a wider nomination relating to these categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:South African sailors (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be a duplicate of Category:South African sailors

This category was created by a rename of the South African yacht racers category (see CFD discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_29). Can I propose that we consider merging these two categories into one? Preferably for simplicity keeping it South African sailors Gbawden (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both – we have Category:Sailors (sport), subcat of Category:Sailors (for all sailors). Surely there have been notable non-sporting S African sailors in the last 400 years. Oculi (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is where I get confused. Category:Sailors states "This is the category of all persons who have spent part of their life as recreational or commercial sailors, meaning as crew on a sailing vessel or other vessel" while Sailors (sport) is for "Worldwide index of famous sailboat racers. Includes Crew Members and Skippers etc." I suppose a Pirate might have been a professional sailor but according to those category "definitions" and my definition a sailor (sport) is the same as a sailor. Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the confusion and wondering if Category:Sailors should stay at all, as it seems like a non-defining characteristic except for sports sailors. Having said that I'd rather not support the nomination but would instead propose to nominate the parent Category:South African sailors for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2015 (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.

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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television shows set in Sonoma, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary overcategorization. sonoma county is adequate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to county category -- That should be specific enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (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.

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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television shows set in Petaluma, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary overcategorization. sonoma county is adequate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to county category -- That should be specific enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (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.

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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television shows set in Gilroy, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary overcategorization. santa clara county is adequate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to county category -- That should be specific enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2015 (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.

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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television shows set in Palo Alto, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary overcategorization. santa clara county is adequate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to county category -- That should be specific enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2015 (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.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sinn Féin MPs to Category:Sinn Féin MPs for Northern Irish constituencies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following a discussion on Category talk:Sinn Féin MPs#Scope, there is a need to disambiguate between Sinn Fein MPs from before 1923 and those elected afterwards. Snappy (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll still need a category with this name for a parent. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest rename Category:Sinn Féin MPs since 1983 (not sure of the precise date - it could be, say, 1960). I would suggest that this can be directly parented to Category:Sinn Féin politicians. The present name is ambiguous. The earlier group should be in a category something like Category:Sinn Féin MPs before 1923. These in fact do not relate to the same party. The descendant of the early party in Northern Ireland was Official Sinn Fein, whereas the 1983 and later MPs are from what was earlier Provisional Sinn Fein. Note that MPs is an acceptable abbreviation. Sinn Fein has never fought any GB constituency, so that the inclusion of NI is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Category:Sinn Féin MPs since 1983 (or whatever date is choosen). For pre-1923 MPs, we already have Category:Early Sinn Féin politicians so we could have Category:Early Sinn Féin MPs as a sub-category. Snappy (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, either on WP or in the literature, that Official Sinn Féin were the successors of Sinn Féin to the exclusion of "Provisional" Sinn Féin. The argument that pre-1923 and current do not relate to the same party is therefore not cut-and-dried. Scolaire (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. So if the consensus is to delete then I have no problem with that. Snappy (talk)

• Delete. While on the face of it it is logical to have a category for Sinn Féin MPs the same as Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, I believe this cat is not useful. The number of Sinn Féin elected MPs (since Gerry Adams in 1983) is tiny, and will remain tiny for the foreseeable future. Unlike Tory etc. MPs they are elected in order to abstain from parliament and are therefore not on the greasy pole aiming to be prime minister or leader of the opposition, or indeed to have any say in the running of the UK. Gerry Adams has less in common with Michelle Gildernew and Conor Murphy than with Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin and Gerry Kelly. To have Adams and McGuinness in different cats decreases the information value of those cats. Far better to put elected MPs in the two categories of Sinn Féin politicians and Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Northern Irish constituencies. As the discussion here and at the category talk page shows, any time frame for "MPs xxxx–yyyy" is arbitrary and meaningless, and I would oppose any category with made-up dates. All MPs in the 1917–22 period are in Category:Members of the 1st Dáil by virtue of their election as MP, and almost everybody in Category:Early Sinn Féin politicians was elected MP, so having a third category would be overkill. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scolaire ----Snowded ^TALK 10:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a container category for all SF MPs and at the same time create Category:Sinn Féin MPs for Northern Irish constituencies and by period categories if necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Laurel Lodged --- Gob Lofa (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2015 (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.

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 12:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pension to Category:Pensions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this ought to be plural. Tim! (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom as per other such categories Hmains (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per WP:PLURAL: "Categories are almost always given plural titles." RevelationDirect (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2015 (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.

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 on what exactly to do here, but users appear to agree that some changes would be appropriate. So a re-nomination of any of the categories should be allowed after some manual re-organization and perhaps creation of new categories.. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Geographical, historical and cultural regions of France to Category:Areas of France
• Propose merging Category:Geographical, historical and cultural regions of Italy to Category:Areas of Italy
• Propose merging Category:Geographical, historical and cultural regions of Piedmont to Category:Areas of Piedmont

Nominator's rationale: more easy-going name, with the explanation that it is for "Geographical, historical and cultural regions" being provided in a headnote. In most countries the term "regions" is being used instead of "areas" but we can't do that in France and Italy because "regions" has a specific administrative meaning in France and Italy. This is a follow-up nomination on this discussion about Belgium which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose much too vague, & not a term in common use. For France, Category:Historical provinces of France would be useful - see Provinces of France. These have a solid basis up to 1790. Many more or less equate to modern departements or regions, but many don't. Not sure what to do for Italy & Piedmont. A keep would be better than the proposal. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment these are a hodge-podge. Look at France, we have subcats, wine areas and such, we could have (as suggested by Johnbod above) another subcat for Category:Former provinces of France, where all those ancien-regime provinces now are to be found, but what I don't like is actual articles about areas that have nothing to do with one another some geographical, some administrative, some historical (in the sense of defunct), some cultural (or viticultural). It makes for a sort of "apples, oranges, and watermelons of the grocers" which doesn't really help navigate similar items. A container category could perhaps work, but not a "doesn't fit elsewhere, so lump it here" category as these seem to be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Both previous comments seem to favor to narrow scope of category, rename and purge. As the nominator I would also be fine with this alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There absolutely are some defining threads running through different clusters of these articles. But they really need to be broken down further. I think deleting and starting fresh is the most direct route but, if other editors want to rename/purge that's fine too (and pretty much the same outcome). RevelationDirect (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (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.

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. MER-C 12:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Austria-Hungary) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Cross of Merit of the Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Order of Merit of the Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Decoration for Services to the Red Cross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Order of Leopold (Austria) recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF and the delete outcome of numerous previous award discussions. There is nothing special about the nominated categories to make an exception for. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorzation by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - agree with precedent this point. Neutrality^talk 03:18, 16 August 2015 (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.

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. MER-C 12:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Holidays and observances by frequency (to be determined) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No proper inclusion criteria. The category was previously deleted under a slightly different name in this discussion. Upmerging to Category:Holidays is not needed / not desirable since we have all holidays and observances already in the trees of Category:Public holidays by country and Category:Observances respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• nomination is mixing up this maintenance category with main space categories. They cannot be cross discussed; they are separate. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the previous discussion the maintenance purpose was unclear, I suppose this is still the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As either a maintenance category or a namespace one, this doesn't server any purpose. (For what it's worth, I suspect this is namespace category incorrectly tagged maintenance.)RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the text in the category will prove this is a maintenance category Hmains (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose; presumably so "holidays and observances" have irregular frequency (say "State Funerals" or "Coronations") that they'll never be categorizable but that isn't in need of "maintenance". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not aid navigation or classification; also confusing to the reader. Neutrality^talk 03:20, 16 August 2015 (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.

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. The discussion was heading in the direction of a dual-upmerge to the century categories for Ottoman Syria as well as the year categories for Ottoman Empire, e.g. Category:18th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria as well as the year categories Category:1784 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. However, implementing that now would depopulate the hierarchy in Category:Decades in Ottoman Syria, which (a) has not been tagged (despite my suggestion dated 3 June, below) and (b) has been expanded since the nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by year to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by year

Additional listings below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1784 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1784 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1788 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1788 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1860 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1860 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1863 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1863 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1876 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1876 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1878 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1878 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1898 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1898 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1903 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1903 establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by decade to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by decade
• Propose merging Category:1860s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1860s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1870s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1870s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1890s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1890s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:1900s establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1900s establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by century to Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire by century
• Propose merging Category:16th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:16th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:18th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:18th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire
• Propose merging Category:19th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:19th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: None of the other states or regions within the Ottoman Empire contain their own establishments substructure and given the small number of possible categories here, it may be better to upmerge these to the Ottoman Empire establishments categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not against it, but there are two issues. First, the nomination should apply to the entire tree of Category:Years in Ottoman Syria. Second, it should also upmerge to the respective Syria categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Do you think these articles should be in both the Ottoman Empire and the Syria categories? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, the practice so far is to categorize year categories both by contemporary and by current polity. We had a huge discussion to change that for the Germany and Holy Roman Empire categories (the proposal was to categorize by Holy Roman Empire only, not by Germany) but I don't think the discussion has led to consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was for categorize by contemporary polity and then put those within the current polity history by period categories. As such, the HRE categories would be the main categories and then those would be under the Germany history by period structure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be more precise: sometimes an article is in one category (HRE), sometimes in the other (Germany), sometimes in both - entirely dependent on the view of an individual editor. Anyway they're not related categories except at a very very top level. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This arises from categorising by modern states. I dealt with various Turkish categories, but then ran out of steam. Ottoman Syria covers a larger area than the current Syria, but the six subcategories all need renaming or merging to Ottoman Empire ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not have the contents to justify such a seperation. Ottoman Syria was not more distinct than other sub-units of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Ricky81682: this should be relisted along with the surrounding categories by century and decade, and all the subcats. – Fayenatic London 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Small issue: the first nomination's target is a redlink, the target should be changed to: Category:18th-century establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this suggestion. What needs to happen is a lot of work on adding articles to establishment categories, not undermining the work that has been done to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This small issue is meanwhile outdated, there's no longer a redlink. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- We had a series of discussions about this some time ago, when we settled on that format. I remember that well, as I was the nominator for many of them. Previously these were "Foo in Syria", at a time when the present country did not exist. Some content related to places now in Israel. We settled on the category relating to an Ottoman province, whose extent differed somewhat from the present Syria. Perhaps I should have gone on to make similar nominations for the provinces of Mosul and Baghdad, which are probably still Iraqi categories. This followed on from renaming "Foo in Turkey" categories to Ottoman Empire, though perhaps the targets should have been provincial ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Something I'm open to either the proposal or a Ottoman province by century (if that addresses Peterkingiron's concern). Whatever the past discussions, this is creating a whole tree of underpopulated categories which doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are unaware that there are much more Ottoman Syrian categories, than shown here. It combines all "Foo in Jordan", "Foo in Syria", "Foo in Israel", "Foo in Palestine" and "Foo in Lebanon" from the Ottoman era.GreyShark (dibra) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per user:Peterkingiron, the evolution of Ottoman Syria categories is a result of many discussions to avoid anachronism and edit-warring on sensitive topics (Syrian war, Israeli-Palestinian conflict etc.). Further, the Ottoman Syria categories stand for Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, which were semi-autonomous in regard to the central Ottoman government (like Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq). We also have many events and categories specifically in Ottoman Syria, while Ottoman Empire is a much larger topic. Furthermore, Ottoman Syria topics are already linked as daughter categories of Ottoman Empire. GreyShark (dibra) 14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please see the original discussion why Ottoman Syria was chosen in favor of Ottoman Empire for Levantine categories - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_31#Syrian_Categories. I also invite the remaining original participant User:Good Olfactory to provide his opinion in this current discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 14:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @Marcocapelle:, @Ricky81682:, please consider political correctness for using modern "Syria"n categories for past-related (contemporary) articles and categories, since Syria main article is about the Syrian Arab Republic, which frankly doesn't control most region of Syria any more (Syria is a failed state), and is pretty much politically sensitive. Utilization of "Syria" for past categories would also create a battleground which Syria is genuine - whether Syrian Arab Republic or Syrian Opposition. You don't want to get into it and this is why utilization of contemporary entities for pre-modern categories is so problematic. Also, there is a very likely scenario that Syria completely disintegrates and Kurds declare independence of Rojava, would you rename all of the historic categories concerning North-East Syria once again to "Foo in Rojava"? this is nonsense.GreyShark (dibra) 08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for relisting this discussion is exactly because it wasn't very clear whether or not we should upmerge to Syrian categories. On the one hand the name "Syria" has existed for a long time before the current republic was established, on the other hand it used to be much bigger in the past than the current republic. I can understand arguments from both sides. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a new country is created, then yes we would need to reorganized and split the article appropriately. I'm sure we did that with Southern Sudan and the like. At the moment, I'm just proposing here that we replace all of Ottoman Syria with the Ottoman Empire as no other subdivision of the Ottoman Empire exists. Otherwise, then I'll propose splitting the Ottoman Empire into its relevant subdivisions so that they connect with the current entities. The solution may be require an RFC given how complicated all this is at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see the Ottoman Syria categories as a good model for Ottoman Cyprus, Rumelia Eyalet and Ottoman Crete categories to be created, whilst Ottoman Empire serves as the mother categorization for all.GreyShark (dibra) 09:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to utilize a double category tree (modern+contemporary), then if Rojava transforms into a state, you would be forced in such case to go to all historic categories and articles concerning North-East Syria and replace them with "Foo in Rojava" (like 19th century, 18th century and so on backwards). This is illogical and against Wikipedian principles, which strive for stable articles and categories.GreyShark (dibra) 09:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Centuries in Ottoman Syria Upmerging all these underpopulated categories to the centuries in Category:Establishments in Ottoman Syria by century would preserve the separate listings of Ottoman Syria while getting rid of a lot of underpopulated categories. That seems like a reasonable compromise. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, support dual upmerge of Category:1784 establishments in Ottoman Syria to Category:1784 establishments in the Ottoman Empire and Category:18th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria, and so on for all other nominated categories, per RevelationDirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - centuries will not work well - there are too many Ottoman Syria year categories already. Considering dual upmerge per User:Marcocapelle - there is no need, because all Ottoman Syria categories are already daughter categories of Ottoman Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are relatively few year categories and on top of that they are each very tiny (mostly 1 article per category). This would much better fit in a more robust century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that there aren't enough year categories, it's that there aren't enough articles in those single year categories. Most of the tree is underpopulated. No objection to revisiting if/when there are more articles created.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2015 (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.