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 and split per revised proposal below. – FayenaticLondon 09:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as "legal works" can refer to court case work, or the laws themselves, or the work to create bills. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support last suggestion. The present category is a hotchpotch of legal textbooks, reference works and journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2015 (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. MER-C 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Too little material this far back in time to do this by year. The buildings category by year is more then adequate at this point in history. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. For the buildings categories per year, the expression more than adequate is well-chosen. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar categories in the 10th to 12th centuries were approved on similar grounds. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- However, I think that "buildings and structures completed in 1272" itself needs merging, perhaps inot a decennial cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NARROWCAT or WP:TRIVIALCAT. The place of birth of Scottish ministers isn't worth categorizing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though many of the members should be removed as they are in the bishops subcat. - jc37 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing the deletion of Category:Clergy from Paisley. Some of its members can be merged to the bishops cat, but not all, and it appears to fit in the category scheme as it currently is. - jc37 02:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So do you honestly prefer that we keep a category for the place of birth of Scottish ministers? I'm just double checking because it's sounding just too trivial for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my preference would be to delete all the subcats of Category:Clergy by city (well, merge to "people from...", anyway), but as that and those exist, then we shouldn't arbitrarily delete this one. - jc37 20:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose second merge to Category:Scottish Christian clergy. Four articles are in the tree of this category already, so upmerging would only cause unnecessary pollution. Two articles aren't in this tree but in all fairness I would say they don't really fit in Category:Scottish Christian clergy either (one article concerns an early medieval Irish missionary working in Scotland, the other a minister in the United States who was born in Scotland). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge. Prelates is an extra but unnecessary category layer which doesn't appear in other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For most practical purposes the terms are synonymous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unneccessary level to the cat tree at this time. - jc37 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the rationale, though technically it should be a downmerge so that the archbishops category becomes part of the bishops category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, upmerge for one, lateral merge for the other... But that can be handled after a close of delete : ) - jc37 02:48, 31 March 2015 (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 all. MER-C 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Do we really need to break these out by decade this far back in time? They are already in the building by year category tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other categories will be nominated as the articles are verified to be in the correct trees. As you are aware, there is a lot of work needed in these trees so that will take time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's somewhat strange that Vegaswikian created individual categories per year for the 15th century, but has difficulty with Bridges per decade. I created the above categories following a suggestion at the 31 December CfD. To be honest, the "Bridges completed in..." categories would be better placed in 'By decade' categories up till at least the 17th century (rather than the current one-article-per-category set-up). I don't feel strongly enough to oppose this nomination because of the relatively small number of dateable 14th century bridges. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to nominate to merge bridges to decade categories for up to the 17th century I'll definitely support it. Even for the 18th century it would be fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that doing that does not reduce the number of categories each article is in since they will also need to be upmerged to the building tree. So navigation is not really improved in my mind. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct but users of Wikipedia will get a good read of related articles instantly, without the need to scroll up and down different year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or be able to see all of the categories in one place with having them hidden by unneeded subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the century category. That contains a dozen or so articles, the sub-cats contain another 9. That is not too much for a single cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2015 (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. MER-C 13:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals includes, and a topic that is the subject of a wide range of books, articles and scholarly research. Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining (i.e., trivial) and unmaintainable. How the fact that one of your ancestors was a converso defines who you are and why you're notable today is beyond imagination... And what reliable sources would there be that (a) your ancestor was a converso and (b) you are truly that person's descendant (unless we are limiting the structure to purely the female line, to remove any doubt of an illegitimate fatherhood). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The conversos were Portuguese Jews who had converted to Catholicism in the 16th century. For a couple of centuries they were subject to discrimination (on the basis that they were covert Jews), but later the government decreed that all records of who were conversos should be destroyed. Accordingly, the conversos ceased to be a separate community long ago. This means that there is liable to be difficulty in verifying a converso descent. Furthermore, it is probably so far back as not to be a significant factor in the biographies of modern people. If some one was of the converso community when it was distinct, they should be categoriesed as such, not merely being given a descent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Especially in the case of the Americans this is often an undocumented claim, and has no bearing on their real ethnic identity. These people are Portuguese or Hispanic Americans, often best identified as being Americans of Mexican descent. This is a trivial fact of geneology with no actual effect in the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2015 (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. MER-C 02:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, C2C-ish to its parent Category:Ancient cities, proposed name clarifies better that it's only about ancient cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I presume we are using other names for the later periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2015 (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. MER-C 02:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge. Not sure about this. It seems like the only thing that the articles in this category have in common is that they relate to international law. Which applies just the same to the target (parent) category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - this makes sense. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both mean the same thing and the target name is more succinct. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2015 (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. MER-C 03:00, 30 April 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: downmerge for according the Troad article, Troad and Troas are synonyms. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge and rename the article to match. They are not synonyms; they are in fact the same word. Troas is the nominative; in other cases, this becomes Troados (genitive), etc. I think we should be using the nominative of the name, not other cases. I note that the map in the article spells the name Troas. This is also how the name appears in the KJV Bible. This spelling is given in the main article as an alternative: its lead needs to be adjusted as part of its renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Would you be willing to initiate the discussion to rename the article? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either downmerge or reverse merge, dependent on the outcome for the article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems there is no consensus on renaming in the article space, let's then also keep it to downmerging in the category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2015 (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. MER-C 03:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Its only content is one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small intervening people category is not helpful to navigation here. SFB 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with no prejudice to revisit if we ever get any articles on non-royals. I have to admit that seems unlikely, but it is possible a new treasure trove of ancient records will be found that give us enough information to create articles on other people of Wilusa deemed to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OC. Excluding the 11th century category which is relatively well populated we are now using 6 categories for 8 articles. Besides, exact years are inaccurate anyway (see 1200 BC and 1600 BC as "exact" years). The structure of Category:Populated places by millennium of establishment gives a good example that this states and territories tree should rather follow.
Note: after this merge a few intermediate decade categories will become empty and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the years to centuries; Keep the centuries. 100 years is suitable for a category at this distance in time; 1000 years is too long and leads to a rather pointless category. I appreciate that some of the potential centiry categories do not exist. If this was done for populated places, that was a mistake. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to century The century categories are suitably both long enough to gather a reasonable amount of content and brief enough to gather related content. Agree that the millennium level is to broad to be defining enough idea to warrant navigation between the articles. SFB 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Except in the 11th century, the problem here is that there is hardly any related content in the same category. I agree that a millennium is quite a long time, but then I would argue we might better listify before 1100 BC instead of categorizing it. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added double merge in nomination (in italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question do we really need a by decade structure in the 2nd millennium BC? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question, probably the answer is no, at the very least not between 2000 and 1500 BC. But since these categories currently exist the nominated categories should be upmerged to them to begin with. In a next nomination the general decade categories of the 2nd millennium BC may be discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer, the alternative proposal by some of the above editors is as follows:
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. – FayenaticLondon 09:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zenwort:Question what about the reverse? Is every monastery also a temple? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2015 (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. MER-C 07:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Law of different cities of the world doesn't have much in common, since it primarily depends on country law. I would suggest keeping the child categories of the nominated category (only) in the tree of the respective countries, not in a global tree by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was planning on voting against until I saw what was actually in there. One of the two categories is Washington, DC which is more of a state. (Law in Singapore could also be described as "by city" in the same way.) The other category, London, contains two dubious sub-categories (trials by city limits and legal buildings by city) and nearly all of the loose articles are duplicate listings from Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning London. Unlike Marcocapelle, I have no objection to recreating later. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep various city states can also be categorized into these categories. And city laws/bylaws do not necessarily follow on country law especially considering federal entities where province/prefecture/state law weigh more heavily. Historically, even less so. This is a useful subcategory of the city category tree, navigating by category tree. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people looking for an article on a law enacted in one city are unlikely to look for articles on dissimilar laws only enacted at the city level. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think this serves a useful purpose. DC would be better placed in a "law by US state or territory" category. There are local Acts for many places in Britain, but in most cases they are enabling Acts that do not make the law in one place significantly differnet from that in another. London due to its size has somewhat more local legislation, but I still do not see this as useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. The child categories have nothing in common except the word 'issues' in the category name. No need to upmerge, the child categories are also categorized elsewhere in the tree of Category:Law. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Another category that sounds fine until you look closer. Clear case of SHAREDNAME.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely shared name, nothing else in common, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This has very little content and the name of the browser isn't even finalized. There's a mix of WP:SMALLCAT and WP:CRYSTAL here. No prejudice against recreation if 1.) it has a name and 2.) there is more content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is highly confusable, as it is not about browsers that are spartan (lacking in features) --- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the exact problem with the name of the category; spartan is an adjective; and the main articleis not named "Spartan browser" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The public beta of the browser is less than a weeks away. More articles will be created then. --RaviC (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguously named categories are problems -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the browser has been finalised (and category renamed), so the arguments about naming here are no longer relevant to the debate. --RaviC (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The browser is at the early development stage. Creating at this moment a category for just a couple of pages IMO is incomprehensible move.--Pit rock (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much content yet.Tony0517 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2015 (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.
