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 all that remain within this nomination (some were removed and considered separately at Nov 6). – FayenaticLondon 11:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not bulkempty categories under discussion before there is some consensus over what's happening with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: It was one category, because that category alone is in the ancient roman fort tree, when it shouldn't be, regardless of whether or not the roman fort tree is deleted. The other edits are me tagging them for deletion.IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 00:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I would say that the amount of other categories make up for it, under the consensus of the last time (which I admit was far too soon), we covered that the two (being roman sites and fortifications) should be seperate, while the sites goes into much detail for obvious reasons, I dont think the fortifications should. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 01:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below. The triple linkage by country needs to be partially replicated in the case of the English and Welsh counties. Actually, the quickest way to achieve this would be to simply rename them from Category:Ancient Roman forts in Devon to Category:Roman fortifications in Devon. We can lose the "Ancient" as the Romans haven't built any forts in a long time so the danger of confusion with the modern city is fairly limited. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the sub-country ones have been split off, I withdraw my 'oppose'. I support the country ones. Oculi (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most Support all except those in the English and Welsh counties. Some more work needs to be dome there before they can be included. This nomination goes back to the recent October 5 proposal. I did not support it at the time because the linkages for complementary category trees were not in place and so they were not redundant. I have since (almost completely I think) remedied this defect; the categories are now redundant. So you now have the following schema:
Are we to have this set of categories nominated for deletion every month, until we give the right answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: No, it just became entirely redundant as of recently, after the problems with the categorization were fixed. I see no argument that you have made here against it, other than some hostile words against me. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have been supporting the principle of restricting this tree, but I would like to see it being done by a series of mergers, rather than an omnibus one, when it is not clear that we will not be left with orphaned articles. I am not convinced that we need a continental split: Africa and Asia (as used today) are later constructs. To the Romans these referred to relatively small areas, single provinces or superior and inferior pairs of them. I would like to see the British categories (where there are many more articles) dealt with in a separate nom. Accordingly procedural close. I am sorry to be difficult, but this sort of thing needs to be handled by stages, establishing the principle and only then applying it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Peterkingiron: I agree that the continental classification is only of interest to modern eyes. However, Wiki is built for modern eyes. Nevertheless, I also created a series of "By province" categories for the fortifications. These use a different grouping that has more to do with geo-historico categorisation (e.g. Analtolia, Levant). So I think that that addresses your concerns. With the modifications to the original nomination by the nominator, I think that the nomination can now go forward. I see no necessity for a procedural close. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: You have struck your oppose, are you now supporting or are you staying neutral? IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard, I found your saying you now supported it and bolded it. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My last response was a comment. Since there are few articles for most countries, I think we ought to close most continental items. I am not sure about Romania (which has a lot of articles). The British categories should be closed as no consensus, with the objective of working on a new scheme: auxiliary forts; and legionary forts in Britannia (without any split); possibily splitting out forts on or just behind Hadrians Wall and Antonine Wall; and ancient roman sites in foo <local government areas>. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for the English and Welsh forts by county has closed as "rename". I think that that decision allows this nomination to go forward. BTW, I nominated the Snowdonian forts for deletion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 18 December 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 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:WP:SMALLCAT This isn't a huge franchise with multiple articles and stuff to cross over. It only contains the main article and its episode list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Star vs the Forces of Evil category doesn't have enough articles, and I know Star vs isn't a huge franchise with multiple articles and stuff to cross over, and only contains the article and episode list, but you can't delete the category, because it already has became popular. I'm sorry, but there's a lot of merchandising. SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular" and "a lot of merchandising" are not reasons for an eponymous category on Wikipedia. There is one, and only one, valid reason for an eponymous category: a lot of articles already exist to file in the category. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCEPON. No prejudice against recreation if and when there are actually a significant number of articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 6 November 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:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Norway[edit]
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 11:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article, and hardly any chance of expansion if only because the Catholic Church is really tiny in Norway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am somewhat surprised by the low population of a number of the sibling categories, even for those where the Catholic church is huge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the observation. From what I remember in my own country (Netherlands), while the scandal as a whole was definitely a noteworthy topic, individual cases hardly ever were a significant news item. The same may have been the case in certain other countries. I've added some more countries in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Not only does this create overly small categories, but it creates category clutter where one article related to events in multiple countries gets tagged for each.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 8 November 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. --Tavix(talk) 00:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everything that exists does not automatically get an eponymous category just to contain itself, per WP:OCEPON. If there were ten related articles to file here, then it might be justified, but not for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after adding two more articles and a sub-cat, easily found via interwiki links to/from Polish Wikipedia. – FayenaticLondon 23:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem right to add Repnin Sejm and Cardinal Laws to a category with this name. Radom Confederation and Repnin Sejm are two separate political events, while not one event is the overarching theme of the both events. Insofar there is an overarching theme for the both events (as a possible basis for a category) it would rather be Nicholas Repnin or, more broadly, 18th-century Poland–Russia relations. But I wonder if we would need a category like that. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've downgraded my opinion to "weak keep". Those additional articles were already linked via the main article, and now it also has a link to the subcat Category:Radom confederates. If this is deleted, perhaps the subcat should be added to some of the parent categories. – FayenaticLondon 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox parent category for sure, maybe not to the Catholic one. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
