< December 3 December 5 >

December 4

Category:Ephebophilia

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category currently empty; created solely to include James Levine, demonstrating the presumed purpose of listing people accused of sexual misbehavior and potentially violating WP:BLP. HalJor (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2017 (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:Paintings illustrating the Song of Songs

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2017 (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:Counts of Brussels

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, overlaps with Category:Counts of Louvain. See also article Counts of Louvain in which Louvain and Brussels are always listed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure which three counts you are referring to. Lambert I, Count of Louvain was the first count of Louvain and he acquired the county of Brussels. So possibly there were counts of Brussels before there were counts of Louvain, but for sure that applies to none of the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Counts of Louvain states that the first mention of the Count of Brussels was with Lambert II - the title may have only become official then. If it came into existence with the acquisition of the county of Brussels (which does make sense, come to think of it), perhaps Category:Counts of Louvain should simply be renamed Category:Counts of Louvain and Brussels. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since all article names are consistently including "Count of Louvain", I would assume that this Louvain was considered to be the main property of these counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2017 (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:Roman Limes

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: split to Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications as appropriate in each case.
This will ahve to be done manually, so pinging the particpants, who may want to do some of the work, @Black Falcon, Laurel Lodged, Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, SMcCandlish, Narky Blert, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted that the subcats have already been merged elsewhere per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Roman_līmitēs_by_country, so The result of the discussion was:moot.
I don't like the fact that the same set of categories was the subject of two simultaneous CfDs, but there it is. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Roman Limes to Category:Roman limites or Category:Roman līmitēs (and category redirect the other)
Nominator's rationale: According to Limes and wikt:limes#Latin, the plural form of "līmes" is "līmitēs". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Category:Roman Limes to Category:Roman limes - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Ukraine to Category:Roman limes in Ukraine - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Tunisia to Category:Roman limes in Tunisia over re-direct per C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Syria to Category:Roman limes in Syria - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Scotland to Category:Roman limes in Scotland - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Slovakia to Category:Roman limes in Slovakia - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Serbia to Category:Roman limes in Serbia - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Romania to Category:Roman limes in Romania - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Netherlands to Category:Roman limes in the Netherlands - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Libya to Category:Roman limes in Libya - C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in Germany to Category:Roman limes in Germany – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in France to Category:Roman limes in France – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Roman Limes in England to Category:Roman limes in England – C2A Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose this set. @Laurel Lodged: C2D per what? Roman Limes and Roman limes both redirect to Limes, so that doesn't help. The head category and most sibling categories use Roman Limes, so these nominations go against C2C. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Reply Was a typo - should be C2A to correct a typo. Limes should not be capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Laurel Lodged and Fayenatic london: We may also rename them to Category:Limes, Category:Limes in Ukraine etc. per WP:C2D, how do you feel about that? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I would prefer that these speedies go ahead. Later, I think that the entire scheme of Roman Walls, Roman Limes and Roman Fortified Roads needs to be re-visited. To that end, I've started a discussion at Talk:Limes#Walls_vs_Limes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any point having a speedy renaming, particularly one that goes against C2C, while a wider discussion is under way. Also, "Limes" is singular; the categories should use a plural noun, and the choice deserves a full discussion e.g. "Roman Limites", "Roman limites", "Roman frontiers", "Roman fortified boundaries".
      In reply to Marcocapelle's suggestion to drop "Roman", that is not desirable because there are medieval Limites e.g. Limes Saxoniae. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Fayenatic london, why bother now while a discussion is still ongoing. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Support with Roman limites, not limes (with or without Roman), and not with a a capital L. The capitalization of Limes in these constructions is wrong (and would be wrong as Limites). Dropping the Roman would be grossly ambiguous with limes, especially in category space where we use plurals; about 99.9% of readers would think they were about fruit if they were in the form "Limes in Tunisia". The plural rule means use limites, anyway. We could use just "Limites in Tunisia", etc., but it's not likely to be meaningful to the average reader and may just look like a typo. Roman limites will tell all but the bonehead that it's a Latin word. I've looked at the RfC opened at Talk:Limes and it's just a bunch of rambling with no indication of going toward a consensus. If we need to change it later to Roman frontiers or whatever, then fine, we can do so. No reason to have incorrectly singular and capitalized categories in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that makes sense. Pinging User:Fayenatic london, User:Laurel Lodged and User:Marcocapelle for thoughts. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a sensible interim measure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced that it's in the right direction. I would prefer to see a full discussion. It seems to me that this may be a case of over-categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME. Why do we need a hierarchy using a foreign word, when we already have Category:Roman frontiers and Category:Roman fortifications? – Fayenatic London 09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no objection to that objection. Given the amount of discussion above, this should just go to a full discussion instead of languishing in the holding tank.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I started a discussion to rename the top-level category here and to upmerge the subcategories here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the speedy discussion? I was referring to Black Falcon's comment of "You're right, of course, but few people will know" 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: What is your opinion regarding the alternative view in this discussion that we do not need an ambiguous foreign word while we have common words available ("fortifications" and "frontiers")? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)he[reply]
I do not think "fortifictions" is satisfactory, as limēs are were rather different from fortresses; indeed, I am not sure that all of them were fortified. Frontiers were probably do. The English limit is derived from the word. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me. We have a case here where the same Latin word was used for dissimilar things; since this isn't la.wikipedia we don't need to care, and should categorize as makes the most sense in English for the subject at hand. There may be cases that end up both the frontiers and fortifications categories, and that's okay (for cases that actually qualify).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:13, 2 January 2018 (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:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Lawyers of Commonwealth of Nations member countries in the Caribbean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: For the life of me, I can't fathom a reason why this would represent a separate class of topic from the rest of the Caribbean and/or from Commonwealth of Nations member countries outside of the Caribbean. Are they some unique class of lawyer, radically unlike other lawyers, somehow? Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:27, 4 December 2017 (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:South Korean K-pop singers

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. It's likely that 98% of the contents in Category:K-pop singers would fit into this subcategory. It would make more sense to categorize non-natives by genre (like Category:Japanese K-pop singers, Category:Chinese K-pop singers, etc), but not by native South Koreans. ℯxplicit 04:48, 4 December 2017 (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