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: renamed to Category:Redirects to ASCII-only titles and Category:Redirects from ASCII-only titles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Redirects to titles with ASCII to Category:Redirects to ASCII-only titles
• Propose renaming Category:Redirects from titles with ASCII to Category:Redirects from ASCII-only titles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The sibling category names Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics and Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics make sense, but not these two. All category names include ASCII characters, which can be typed on a standard keyboard. What is distinctive here is whether the titles contain only ASCII characters. As a case in point, to show why the "with/without diacritics" categories do not cover all cases, the hyphen is an ASCII character but the en-dash ("–", as used in date ranges per WP:DASH) is not. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I certainly thing that ASCII-only redirects should exist for any topic with a title that includes non-ASCII titles, and also initial release Unicode codepoints-only redirects (without supplementary planes, or later additions) to provide base level compatibility in all cases. If we categorize them, I don't see a problem with that. If the pagename only uses 7-bit ASCII characters, then that's ASCII-only (without any use of the extended Latin ISO-1 or 8-bit EASCII) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: another example is Lichtenstein’s hartebeest with a curly quote, which redirects to Lichtenstein's hartebeest with a plain quote. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Proposed titles are much more descriptive and helpful. – Paine  07:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should be noted here that the redirect category (rcat) templates that populate these categories are presently named ((R to ASCII-only)) and ((R from ASCII-only)), respectively. PS added by – Paine  19:20, 8 July 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: merge/rename per nomination. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Films set in the 10th millennium BC to Category:Films set in prehistory
• Propose renaming Category:11th millennium BC and earlier in fiction‎ to Category:Prehistory in fiction
• Propose merging Category:10th millennium BC in fiction‎ to Category:Prehistory in fiction (i.e. to the category on the previous line)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT and for films and 11th millennium also per WP:SMALLCAT. In addition, the timing of this fiction is far from precise, so "prehistory" is much more to the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is generally no profound difference between the choice of 10th or 11th millenium BC. The choice is an arbitrary one and the usage as a trope is not specifically connected to that millenium, but rather prehistory in general. SFB 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The time setting of a film is non-defining. The time is generally made up to some extent or other for the film, it is an artistic choice not an intrinsict value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to fit the larger category. The time setting of a film is always defining. Dimadick (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Prehistory" is an awfully fuzzy identifier. But I don't see the value in narrowly defined categories in this area which results in a lot of small or underpopulated categories. So, I think merging and renaming is preferable if these categories are kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:00, 31 July 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: merge/delete as specified. MER-C 04:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:8th century BC

• Propose merging Category:701 BC to Category:700s BC
• Propose merging Category:701 BC deaths to Category:700s BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:702 BC deaths to Category:700s BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:703 BC deaths to Category:700s BC deaths
• Propose merging Category:704 BC deaths to Category:700s BC deaths

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. Merge the first ~50 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into "general decade" categories, "deaths by decade" and "by topic/location by century" categories. The proposal is similar to the earlier 9th century BC proposal.

Note: this will be the last all-century proposal from my side. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Going down to the year is not helping to group related material, and certainly does less so than grouping at the century level in this case. SFB 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Keep up the good work of eliminating these miniscule categories that are a hindrance, not an aid, to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 18 May 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 to delete, and there is a consensus to rename to something, so rename to Category:Writers of American Southern literature (lowercase L to match Southern literature). – Fayenatic London 07:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Southern writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: An absolutely vague category encompassing nearly every writer in the US. Did they write "about" the south, and if so, one book or all of them? Were they born "in the South", or moved there? Are modern writers from Atlanta, with no meaningful connection to Dixie, to be included? Impossibly vague. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP If Southern literature exists, then presumably there must be Southern writers ie., those who create it. And it seems to be our de facto position that Southern literature does, indeed, exist, as per the following article: Southern literature KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename the current name is very unclear. If it is for writers of Southern literature and if that is indeed a defining characteristic for the writers of this category (which is still questionable) it should at least be renamed to Category:Writers of Southern literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your point, but "writers of Southern literature," is atrocious, from an aesthetic standpoint. I don't think many people will be confused about the meaning of a category that is entitled "Southern writers," particularly when they see its filled with a bunch of, well, Southern writers. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While a rename of the category in line with its main inclusion criterion is apparently not possible, I'll strike my 'or rename' vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as a vague category, that will lead to confusion. The description and initial items seem to conflate birth location, work location, subject matter, school, and treatment. (A category that includes Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and Edgar Allen Poe as 'southern writers' is not useful. — Neonorange (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename the current name does not indicate what it is for; if it is for what the category description says, then it should be Category:Writers who write about the American South. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if Kept to Category:American Southern literature writers (which matches the format in Category:American romantic fiction writers). Looking at the contents though, I have concerns that the current usage is much broader than that, along the lines of Neonorange above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Writers of the American South which is clearly unambiguous and in line with the terms used to describe the culture. Southern literature is clearly distinct enough to warrant its own categorisation. SFB 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So do you suggest categorizing by the writer's location? All southern states? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename showhow SFB seems to have the best suggestion yet, but possibly Category:Writers of American Southern Literature might be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, I would strongly prefer Category:Writers of American Southern Literature over Category:Writers of the American South in order to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That a distinct body of literature exists does not mean it is easy or useful to define writers are belonging to it. Mark Twain in some of his works might seem to fit this, however he produced most of his work while resident in either California or Connecticut, and much of his work would be part of Western Literature or New England literature. Unlike in the case of Westerns, where it is clear it is a genere, it is unclear whether this is a genre of the work or based on the creator being in some way "Southern". Lastly the boundaries of the south are too contested for easy classification. Many Southerners will deny that Maryland is part of the south for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename although I think Category:American Southern literature writers, Category:Writers of American Southern Literature and Category:Writers of the American South are equally clunky replacements. I think that the important elements to this case is that there is an identifiable genre of fiction called Southern literature. But Category:Southern writers is too vague and could refer to writers from the Southern hemisphere. I think the important, defining elements of a rename are "American", "Southern" and "writers" so I guess my preference would simply be Category:American Southern writers although this might not get general approval. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 31 July 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.