< October 10 October 12 >

October 11

Category:Retractions of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Retractions of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorization. Endorsing or retracting an endorsement is not a defining characteristic for any of these people. It's already listified (List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 11 October 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:Ancient Roman generals

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: The result of this discussion is reverse merge and split. I'd like to add that I am not convinced that Claudius, Duke of Lusitania needs to be purged from "Ancient Roman generals", because the scope of Ancient Rome seems to allow his inclusion on the upper edge. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ancient isn't really necessary, unless the romans still had generals. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: looking through it a lot of them are around 200Ad or so, if we merge the two we could split them off by what type of Rome (i.e. Empire, republic, kingdom, split empire) and further split them off by type. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be, but that's outside the scope of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: if your issue is with the timing, we could use Roman generals as a master cat, and seperate them by century, or else by what Rome was when they served. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite hesitant about whether we should have Category:Roman generals at all, it seems too ambiguous. Does it refer to generals born in Rome, or does it refer to generals serving any state that the city of Rome ever belonged to? Probably we don't have any other "generals by city" categories either. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:, we could simply define it in the category: "a Roman general is a general that served Rome, the kingdom of, the republic of, or the empire of." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly where the ancient Roman tree is meant for, that is not about the city of Rome but about the ancient country (kingdom/republic/empire). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Do you mean: (1) make a new split after merging as nominated, (2) make a new split after reverse merge, or (3) don't merge these two categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we need three categories (1) Generals of the Roman Republic (2) Generals of the Roman Empire (3) Generals of the sub-Roman period. This probably requires both merger and split, but it might be simpler to rename and then purge. I suspect that the imperial category will be small, because emperors did not like having over-powerful generals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interpreting your reply as "make a new split after merging as nominated". That is important because the split can be made after closing this discussion as merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 24 October 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:Films set in New Rochelle, New York

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 23#Films set in Albany County, New York, it's not particularly useful to obsessively subcategorize films all the way down to the level of the individual town they're set in — especially when that results in a large cluster of one, two or three item WP:SMALLCATs. Unlike some of the other categories batched in the first discussion, Westchester does seem to have enough films (almost 20) to justify a category at the county level — but that's not enough films to warrant being comprehensively diffused to the individual towns. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 11 October 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