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, though it's best not to empty the category mid-discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Black liberation movements in the British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rational: delete as unnecessary and a classic case of what I've termed Liberation Lingo. The category is an example of loaded language in and of itself, and uses a contentious label. Whether or not these organizations were genuine liberation organizations and of themselves is not for Wikipedia to judge, per WP:MORALIZE and WP:DECISION - for the same reason we don't take sides when it comes to terms like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist". Furthermore in Africa "liberation movement" has an entirely separate meaning from the typical (black) North American usage of the word, indicating a militant movement engaged in armed conflict. However, this category groups them together with unrelated black power movements in the U.S. that have not engaged in an actual war, according to its arbitrary OR definition of what constitutes liberation movements. The groups listed there are already sufficiently covered under Category:African and Black nationalist organizations in Africa and Category:African and Black nationalist organizations in North America. --Katangais (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't plainly delete, if the category is not needed (which I'm neutral about) then at least the contents should be upmerged to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not just POV, it's also actually wrong. "Black liberation" basically means Black Power and therefore denotes a particular ideology with very little currency in colonial Africa - especially one that would have been totally alien to the Mau Mau rebels and African nationalists currently populating the category. I disagree with Marcocapelle - most of the category entries are included in Category:Resistance to the British Empire and/or Category:African resistance to colonialism anyway so it should not be a question of up-merging. Katangais might consider looking at Category:National liberation movements in Africa‎ as a re-naming - "Anti-colonial nationalism in Africa" or "Anti-colonial movements in Africa" would seem much less pov.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first article is in only one of the two parent categories, the second article is in neither of the two. So an upmerge is definitely applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The category has been emptied. I did individually review each of the articles listed in this category (not hard to do, there were fewer than ten), and found that they could be easily re-categorised due to the amount of overlap. Some didn't even belong there at all, such as black nationalist groups formed in the United States long after American independence from the British Empire. I say we can go ahead and safely delete it now. --Katangais (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The category is trying to create a race based category when we categorize by ethnicity not race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 21 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancient Roman forts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I have gone through all of the subcats and added all pages to better categories, with more precision, such as legionary forts, marching camps, auxiliary forts, etc etc, as such this category and all of its direct sub-cats can be deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed all of the sub-categories that should be retained, as they are not based off of them, and re-tagged them with the better categories. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Let's take just one example for the moment: Isca Augusta. You have not "gone through [...] and added all pages to better categories" for this page, as you don't appear to have edited it at all. If this category of Category:Ancient Roman forts in Newport, Wales was deleted, that important site would be significantly disconnected from categorization as ancient Roman sites.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. The categories you list for deletion are categorizing sites by their modern geography, so that readers today can find their local sites, or sites in a particular locality. That is useful, common WP practice, and is orthogonal to the type of site, such as "legionary forts" etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: the last category: Roman legionary fortresses in Britannia (UK) might interest you. I attempt to achieve exactly what i said, ancient roman fort is very vague, I made or added to several categories, the Roman legionary fortresses's are one of the pre-existing ones, i made "Category:Roman military fortifications" to contain all of the new and old categories such as: Roman Auxiliary Forts, Roman Citadels, Roman fortified camps, Roman fortified roads, Roman Limes, Roman milecastles, Roman signal towers, Roman Vexillation forts, Roman walls and as mentioned, Roman legionary fortresses, these are all broken down by modern country. Having more definitive categories makes them better. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having categories for milecastles etc. is not "better", it is different. The point is that the categories being discussed here tie the sites into geographical location, in modern terms. They are a convenience for people planning visits today. I can see the value in "milecastles", but if I'm planning a trip and want to see Roman sites, I plan by where I'm going instead. It's unworkable that we'd ever produce categories for the intersections of "milecastles in Powys" etc.

For clarity, I'd be happy to see these renamed as just "sites" rather than the slightly-specific "forts". Also "Ancient" sees tautological, outside Rome itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have "guns by country" and "artillery by country" we don't have "Things that shoot stuff by country" its the same with roman forts, the word castrum can mean very different things. Also your point about planning a trip is kind of meaningless, as if you google it (like anyone who was actually planning a trip) you'd still find it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the moment I applaud the work done. It took a lot of effort. As far as it goes, it's categorical attributions are more correct. I don't like "Brittania (UK)" though - no such entity existed or exists. It, and similar ahistorical names, ought to be renamed. However, @Andy Dingley: also has a good point; each article also needs to point to the current political country in which the site is located. A double geographical navigation (historical and contemporary) is best. So until the second part happens, this must be a "keep". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: I'll fix the brittania thing, as for the countries, I believe that all of the others are in contemporary countries, do you mean it should also be by Roman countries, if so, should the contemporary country be inside the Roman one? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: i have fixed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that the only remaining part to be done is to create a Category:Roman military fortifications in the United Kingdom category as part of a "by modern country" scheme within the parent Category:Roman military fortifications. One per country would be necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged:  Done Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any new categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: that's because "roman military fortifications" is a master category, it doesnt contain example by country, it just contains the example, and example contains example by country, if you check inside those categories you will see it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{sigh} If you want something done, you've got to do it yourself. If you can see the pattern in Category:Roman fortifications by country, would you go and replicate for other countries please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry I had no idea what you were talking about earlier. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, on the basis these categories are suitable containers for the subdivisions Iazyges has recently created. Though I'm not sure why the word "Ancient" is needed, unless the Roman Empire is still actively building forts. Sionk (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is suitable, the categories I have made are more suitable as they are more specific Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are no "more" or "less" suitable, they are different and do not replace categorization by modern location. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about they are categorized by location. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should have two category trees: by modern location, and by type of site. We should not have a category structure for the intersections of these. We should have both "Milecastles" and "in Monmouthshire", but not "Milecastles in Monmouthshire" as that would make the categories too narrow, thus effectively empty. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited Category:Roman legionary fortresses in Wales to remove the supercat Category:Ancient Roman forts in Wales. This is a bad edit because it breaks all connection for the category to the important supercat of Category:Roman sites in Wales. I have no attachment to Category:Ancient Roman forts in Wales, by all means delete it (but not during this discussion) but do not leave its children disconnected like this, move them to Category:Roman sites in Wales instead (and similarly for other modern geographical areas). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that added the "Category:Ancient Roman forts in... " cats to Iazyges' new cats yesterday, and then Iazyges quickly reverted. For Iazyges' info, categories go from the general to the specific - "legionary forts in the UK" need to go in "forts in the UK" categories. While Iazyges clearly knows about the Romans, I'm not sure they completely understand categorisation. Either way, they shouldn't pre-empt the outcome of the deletion discussion they created. Sionk (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The present category scheme is anachronistic. The appropriate scheme would be by Roman province, as existing in the first century AD, so as to ignore the later subdivisions of provinces. In the case of the UK the boundaries of the four late Roman provinces are not certainly known, so that we cannot use them. Wales is an artefact of the Middle Ages, for a series of petty kingdoms (later lordships) not directly ruled by English kings. Scotland similarly did not exist, not did Algeria, Bulgaria, etc. Category:Legionary forts in UK is a similar anachronism and should be renamed to Category:Legionary forts in Britannia; Inchtuthil is current categorised as fort (but was a legionary one). The fragmentation of the forts in Wales by council area is unwelcome: these should be upmerged to Category:Roman auxiliary forts in Britannia and Category:Roman sites in Monmouthshire, etc. I suspect the Bulgaria category should be "Thracia" and the Romanian one "Dacia", etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:, @Sionk:, @Laurel Lodged:, @Andy Dingley:, How about the following compromise: We keep Roman military fortification as the master category, under it we have roman fortification in _____ (country), under that we have it split off into ______(type of fortification) in _____ (country). Example being, Roman military fortifications --> Roman fortifications in Germany --> Roman auxiliary fortresses in germany. Is everyone satisfied with that? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. You seem to completely misunderstand all that has been said so far.

We should have two [sic] separate trees for this, joined only at the top. One can be your "Roman military fortification", with whichever subcategories you favour. The other is rooted in a broad "Roman sites" category (military and civilian, even geographical) and then divides by modern geographical location. Peterkingiron has suggested a third category tree, by ancient geographical location, and we could do this too, but also in parallel. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Ah, that makes a lot of sense, I agree with this, would roman forts be deleted or merged into roman sites? I also think the third category tree would be a good idea. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a subcategory. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am proposing is we have two trees (1) Roman sites in (current country/county etc), which will cover not only forts, but towns, villas, etc. In some cases this may generate enough sites in a county for a worthwhile category, but I am still dubious in the case of south Wales (2) Roman sites by type grouped under Roman provinces. In the case of GB they will all need to be in one provincial category - Britannia, since we do not know precisely where the boundaries were. In other early provinces, such as Moesia, Pannonia, Thracia, it may be known where the boundaries were so that the use of late Roman provinces would be feasible. There are two potential course of action, one is for this to be closed as no consensus, leaving people to work on a new tree. The other is to leave this open in the long term, pending the creation of a new cat-tree. I would prefer the former, as on implementation, there will be a large number of redundant categories. The solution is probably to create the new categories, required for the new scheme and purge some of the existing ones so that they can be repurposed and renamed. I would love to work on this myself having in the past dabbled in Roman Britain, but I do not have the time; indeed, I ought to be doing something else at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposal 1 above. I too have been working on this area to make the proposal work. But there's just too much work involved. Take it off the table and implement the above solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I am still dubious in the case of south Wales" I'm always dubious about the South Wales counties - they're just too small and fragmentary. But we have to work with what we have. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on the present South Wales counties, but that is an issue of detail, which does not affect the principle. I was suggesting "Roman sites in <modern county>" on the basis that this is how we would categorise tourist attractions, but the pre-1974 counties, whose boundaries matched those of marcher lordship and hence of Welsh kingdoms might do as well. These are issues to be worked out in more detailed CFDs in due course. For clarification, I am proposing two parallel trees, Roman site in <modern polity> AND Roman forts in <Roman province>. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per user:Peterkingiron.GreyShark (dibra) 09:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the proposed highly detailed categories would have merit, we don't want to lose the geographical overview that (Ancient) Roman Forts by county provides. It is currently consistent with Forts by county and Castles by county, and I'd strongly oppose changes there. Vicarage (talk) 10:30, 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:British Merchant Navy personnel of World War I to Category:British Merchant Service personnel of World War I

Nominator's rationale: As explained in the Merchant Navy (United Kingdom) article, the Merchant Service wasn't renamed the Merchant Navy until after WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 6 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.

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 keep. Both commenting editors agreed that the proposed rename is not needed or appropriate. The argument to upmerge, which was not part of the original nomination but was suggested in the subsequent discussion, apart from not having gained consensus, was successfully countered by the example from the Human migration(s) categories. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Internal migrations to Category:Internal migration by region

Nominator's rationale: Fully descriptive name Otherwize it is unclear why there are both category:Internal migration and category:Internal migrations. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Internal migration. The category contains internal migration by country (mostly) or continent (incidentally) - but not by region. Since it is too small to split between a country and a continent subcat it seems better to just merge it to the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is perfectly standard to have a topic category Category:Human migration with a list subcat Category:Human migrations for articles about particular migrations. Besides, all the subcats are 'Migrations'. Oculi (talk) 20:31, 5 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.

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 to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston. (The "Houston, Texas" categories were recently renamed to "Houston".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buildings of Downtown Houston to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Houston

Nominator's rationale: In line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question should we really categorize buildings by "downtown"? Currently we don't even have a category like that for New York or Chicago. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas. There is no Category:Downtown Houston. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm perfectly happy with that.Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas. There's very little need for buildings in a city to be subcategorized by which individual neighbourhood in the city they're located in — this might be justified if Downtown Houston was its own separate borough like The Bronx or Barking and Dagenham, and was thus partially its own distinct political entity, but cities without distinct boroughs don't need subcategories by neighbourhood. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 10 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.

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 either to delete or to rename. (The meaning of the nomination is unclear to me since the format of all of the subcategories of the parent Category:Companies established in 2007 by country is "FOOian companies established in 2007".)

• Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian companies established in 2007 to Category:Companies of Bulgaria established in 2007

Nominator's rationale: in line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NARROWCAT, even a much bigger country like Germany has a very underdeveloped company establishment tree. If kept, agree with rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- If a company is incorporated in Bulgaria it is Bulgarian. If the complaint is that the category is too small, the solution would be to merge to 2010s. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree to the extent that the one article should be upmerged to its both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge contents. There are simply too few companies in the parent category to justify sub-categorising them by year. Sionk (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as is it agrees with Category:British companies established in 2007 etc. I am not convinced we need this intersection, but I think if it is justified for any country, we should allow it for all, even one article intesection categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 21 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.

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Horn African countries to Category:Horn of Africa and Category:East African countries

Nominator's rationale: This category, created for four countries, is not really adding much to the navigability of the category tree. I propose simply merging it to the two parent categories of Category:Horn of Africa and Category:East African countries. We recently deleted a category that was used to categorize people from these four countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Category:Horn African countries into Category:Horn of Africa makes sense. The same should probably be done with the other parallel regional cats since they are also redundant (i.e. Category:Northeast Asian countries into Category:Northeast Asia, Category:Southeastern European countries into Category:Southeastern Europe, etc.). Soupforone (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 6 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.

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) 01:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Production and organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, entirely overlaps with Category:Production and manufacturing. We may leave a redirect and/or we may move the JEL tag to Category:Production and manufacturing insofar it's important to maintain the JEL classification. Also, if this category is deleted, we should reparent the subcat Category:Production economics directly to Category:Microeconomics. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:42, 5 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.