< January 9 January 11 >

January 10

[edit]

Category:Sports in Peć

[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: rename. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Sports in Peć to Category:Sport in Peć
Nominator's rationale: A typo during category creation. Renaming needed to bring it in the standard format, i.e. Sport in Milan, Sport in Pristina, etc. Mondiad (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2016 (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:Political party alliances

[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. MER-C 12:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. Charles Essie (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2016 (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:People from Westampton Township, New Jersey

[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. MER-C 12:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also propose merging-
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Categories with 1, 2, or 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 10 January 2016 (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:Fertile Crescent

[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. MER-C 12:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Fertile Crescent
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Almost none of the articles in the category mentions Fertile Crescent. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2016 (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.

Small Carniolan categories

[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: Upmerge/delete. Many parallel European categories have anachronisms, like Category:Earthquakes in Italy. For convenience, we use the current boundaries as markers for physical places, and this seems to have majority support below. If this is unsatisfactory to you, some of the country-specific categories are tagged for merging into European-wide categories, which can be dealt with in separate discussions; there is no consensus for that below. There does seem to be support for the idea that these Carniola categories are just too small, whether or not the European categories are too big. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 article each. Note that a double merge is not needed, the four articles are in the tree of Category:History of Carniola already. After the merge, the parent categories become empty and can thus be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2016‎
  • I disagree on the easily expandable. Not only was it a very tiny state, it was also not independent for the larger part of its 1000 years of history. I'm willing to go along with the anachronism argument, implying that upmerge can be changed into delete merge to the respective category in Europe. Again, all content is already in History of Carniola. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good suggestion. So instead of merging to Europe categories it becomes: merge to Holy Roman Empire categories before the year 1806, or to Austrian Empire categories from 1804 to 1867, or to Austria-Hungary categories afterwards. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: @Marcocapelle: were you thinking of "merging" to Category:Earthquakes in the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Political parties in the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Natural history of the Holy Roman Empire and Category:Environment of the Holy Roman Empire, none of which currently exist? The "by country" hierarchies for natural history etc only include current countries, not former countries. Perhaps Politics might be created as a parent to Category:Political history of the Holy Roman Empire, but I cannot find anything else relevant within Holy Roman Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging categories of the Holy Roman Empire to the category 'Germany'? Sarcasm aside, the fact that there is a stub named '1622 Slovenia earthquake' does not by itself mean that the name is ok and should not be revised. The history of Carniola is diverse and spans almost 1000 years, it is a subject that has been studied in numerous books and articles. A number of articles have been and will be written about it. Why shouldn't we categorize them separately so that anyone interested in Carniola could have a quick overview of them without having to browse all the numerous 'Slovenia' categories? --Eleassar my talk 09:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar: as stated in the nomination, these articles are already in Category:History of Carniola. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fine with there being some sort of category connection to Carniola—I'm not against that at all. The question is how deep into the tree do Carniolan topics needs to go? In this case, as pointed out, I think Category:History of Carniola is sufficient, given the amount of material. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2016 (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:Songs about witchcraft

[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) sst✈ 13:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a prime example of why "songs about... don't work. Of 8 members only one could even remotely be considered as about witchcraft and I am leaning to consider that one as a love song using witchcraft as a metaphor as the others do except one - which is an instrumental based on a drug trip. Most of the articles don't actually say anything on the meaning of the lyrics, none with references, so neither defining nor scholarly. Richhoncho (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2016 (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.
More