Category:Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was a speedy nomination to pluralise the long formal name, which was opposed. – FayenaticLondon 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Category:Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation to Category:Press Secretaries of the President of the Russian Federation – C2B: plural Tim! (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: Checking the article Kremlin Press Secretary, Press Secretary of the President of the Russian Federation is the offical title of the role. Tim! (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tim! we usually follow WP:COMMONNAME and match categories to article names, not full formal names except in cases of ambiguity. – FayenaticLondon 07:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, should have been an uncontroversial case of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 8 October 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:Wikipedians who play Unknown Armies
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Wikipedians who play Unknown Armies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not help encyclopedia building to know which games people play. Extensive precedent to delete these type of categories. VegaDark (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a video game implied any interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive video game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:15, 1 October 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:Byzantine Latin language
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query Is the Byzantine Latin language a real thing? Wouldn't every part of the empire speak Latin slightly differently? Does that make each of them a dialect or a distinct language? Are there sources saying that this is a thing? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By Nicolas Oikonomidès - Byzantine Lead Seals, between 5th to 7th centuries, Byzaintine inscriptions were a unique form of Latin with Greek case endings, which was quite distinct from standard Latin (meaning Vulgar Latin and Late Latin for the time).GreyShark (dibra) 13:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. I daresay there were Latin dialects just as there are English dialects, but would anyone seriously create Category:Yorkshire English language or Category:Manx English language? In any event, I do not believe there was any substantial difference in Latin speech or script. If there was, verification is necessary. CravinChillies 08:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified WikiProject Latin to invite additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge for Now Too little content to aid navigation but no objection to recreating later if more content appears. 00:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
Merge as per my comment below; no valid entries into the category, validity of the category at all is disputable. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
full upmerge (as nom). Even if this is a genuine language or dialect (of which I am not sure) and we had a main article, that would only make 3 articles, which is not enough for a category. If this were an AFD about an article, my response would be to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 1 October 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:Byzantine Latin inscriptions
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, the category suggests some use of Latin in the Byzantine Empire but that gives a wrong impression. All three inscriptions in this category are from the time that the Byzantine Empire was merely the eastern half of the Roman Empire (4th/5th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Byzantine Latin somewhat differed from Western Roman and of course Byzantium and Western Rome turned separated by mid 4th century CE.GreyShark (dibra) 11:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By what sources does a Byzantine Latin dialect exist? By what sources are these inscriptions written in this dialect? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By Nicolas Oikonomidès - Byzantine Lead Seals, who clearly says that between 5th to 7th centuries, Byzaintine inscriptions were a unique form of Latin with Greek case endings, which was quite distinct from standard Latin.GreyShark (dibra) 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this also apply to the 4th/5th century inscriptions that are in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. I do not believe there was any substantial difference in Latin speech or script. If there was, verification is necessary and I don't see any such verification in the relevant articles. CravinChillies 08:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified WikiProject Latin to invite additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I am not convinced by the source presented that Byzantine Latin is a dialect. Indeed, nowhere in the source is a dialect mentioned. There is mention that Latin and Greek inscriptions were found on the same seals, and, that sometimes Latin words were given Greek case endings, but, no mention of this forming a dialect/language or anything else. Besides that, the entries into the category don't fit the description presented above either. The Column of Marcian, the first entry into the category, has an inscription that is written in Latin. The same is true of the Column of the Goths. The Obelisk of Theodosius, has both a Latin and a Byzantine Greek inscription. Nowhere do I see a mention of a Latin-Greek hybridization or a Latin dialect that could possibly be called "Byzantine Latin". Indeed, I don't even see an instance of a Latin word receiving a Greek case ending. That puts us back to zero valid entries into the category should it actually be a valid category at all. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- While there is slight evidence of a diglot appearing on seals, all the content appears to me to relate to inscriptions in standard Latin. The Byzantine element in the category relates to the location of 3 columns in Istanbul (formerly Byzantium). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 1 October 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:Sportspeople from Dnipropetrovsk
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. – FayenaticLondon 22:46, 7 October 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:People from Brindle, Lancashire
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People from Brindle, Lancashire to Category:People from Chorley (district)
Propose merging Category:People from Bretherton to Category:People from Chorley (district)
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCATs for just one or two people from small villages. As always, every populated place that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment we have just one or two articles about people from there -- until the number of articles actually justifies a dedicated category (i.e. at least five or six, though preferably double-digits), we just file those people in the category for the parent borough or county. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SMALLCAT. For the most part the nominator is right. There is a small exception for US people places if a community is in more than one-county. There have been at least two CFDs on that saying those categories even if small are kept....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 5 articles is the usual minimum. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created these when splitting Category:People from Brindle and Hoghton, assuming that they should be created as part of the standard category structure (the categories for Anderton (Lancashire), Askam and Ireleth, Askrigg, and many more are similarly small) but unless consensus has changed there are not enough articles for them. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 1 October 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:Globalization terminology
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. ℯxplicit 06:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, the scope of this category is identical to its parent category, there is nothing that the articles in this subcategory have in common except that they are about globalization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge On Wikipedia we uses words and phrases (aka terminology) to let people know what a given page is about. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Looking at Category:Terminology we have a whole category tree devoted to collecting the jargon used in various fields. Is there are reason this particular field terminology cat is singled out for deletion/upmerge? --Mark viking (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No but we should be careful not to nominate categories which are really about terminology (i.e. about linguistics). Many terminology categories have been deleted already, each on their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go so far as to say that whole category tree shouldn't exist, but many of those subcategories serve as a catchall that don't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your answers and the essay link. --Mark viking (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either upmerge or purge of all articles that aren't at the intersection of globalization and terminology. Some of these articles are about terminology (e.g. Global South - although I'm not sure that really is about globalization), but many of the articles in this category are not. DexDor(talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I can see the points about categorizing the topic, not the term and how terminology cats can become poor shadow categories of the main topic. On the other hand, the number of these terminology categories and keep votes at related CfD discussions suggest that people really do want the categorical analog of a glossary. The term cats probably need an RfC to decide policy on this. Such a future solution should not get in the way of cleaning up current difficulties, however. Hence upmerge for now with no prejudice to creating some sort of categorical glossary structure in the future. --Mark viking (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking, I've looked at a sample of the previous CFDs for terms/terminology categories and none of them mentioned the word "glossary" so I don't see any evidence that the creators/defenders of these categories see them as "the categorical analog of a glossary" - and many of the articles that are placed in these categories are not about things that would normally appear in a glossary anyway (example). Often a terminology category is legit (as it contains some articles about terminology), but then people put articles about other things (e.g. Abrasion collar) into it so I think it's more a case of editors not following the existing policies/guidance (e.g. WP:REFERS, WP:SUBCAT) or categorizing based on the title rather than the topic. Do you have any thoughts about a policy/guideline that could be changed (e.g. by RfC) to make it clearer? We already have glossaries (e.g. Glossary of cricket) so I don't see any benefit of introducing a "categorical glossary structure" and lots of disbenefits (e.g. adding further complexity). DexDor(talk) 06:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor, "Glossary" is my own interpretation of the desire to add non-terminology articles to terminology categories. For instance, an editor sees an article like glocalization. The content clearly belongs in the globalization cat or some subcat. But the term is also part of the globalization-specific jargon and wouldn't it be nice to collect jargon-y terms like this into a cat of globalization terminology? Collecting such terms into a globalization glossary/jargon article is the better solution, but the motivation for a terminology cat is there. As long as people think "jargon" is a defining characteristic, they will want terminology/jargon cats. We can be prescriptive about categorizing content, not title. But if that goes against their desire to categorize terms as jargon, it is always going to be an uphill battle. I don't have a good solution. --Mark viking (talk) 09:09, 5 October 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 Catholic churches in Belleville, Illinois
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.
ALT this is a confused nomination. Seems to me that the better merge would be Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belleville, Illinois to Category:Churches in Belleville, Illinois. Each individual member of Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belleville, Illinois is already linked to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Illinois. Category:Churches in Belleville, Illinois is a child of Category:Buildings and structures in Belleville, Illinois. So no further merges are necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Churches in Belleville, Illinois has no articles in it. Only this subcategory of Roman Catholic churches has articles. So putting them in Churches in Belleville, Illinois does not solve the problem of having a very small category that is unlikely to grow.--TM 11:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The alt target is also too small, unless this can be populated quickly. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 1 October 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:Churches in Barrington, Illinois
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 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:Recipients of the Medal of the Armed Forces in the Service of the Fatherland
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 Medal of the Armed Forces in the Service of the Fatherland comes in three grades: Gold, Silver and Bronze awarded, respectively, for 25, 15 and 5 years of service in the Polish armed forces. Serving in the military is defining; receiving an award for serving an arbitrary number of years is not. I listed the recipients of the award here.- RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background We deleted similar military years of service awards from other countries here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Long service medals are NN awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 1 October 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:Recipients of the Nigerian Independence Medal
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Nigerian Independence Medal
The Nigerian Independence Medal was automatically given to every member of the military, police forces or land forces who was employed on 1 October 1960 (Nigerian Independence Day). If you retired on September 30th or started on October 2nd, you would not receive this award. The recipients of this award are already listed here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Background We've deleted an identical category for Fiji here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only three pages in it, and I am unsure this is an award of merit, it appears to be a national gift to a whole group, celebrating independence. I am sure it's a nice piece of bling, but I would not base notability on it. Dysklyver 07:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like a NN award, like campaign stars. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 1 October 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.