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 to Gannett (company) (WP:NAC) with no prejudice against a further CFD (or RM of the article) if any editors want the category name and the article name to match exactly and think there might be consensus to do so. DexDor(talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company is not called "Gannett Company"; it is, instead, "Gannett" or "Gannett Co., Inc." (see website). At WP:CFD/S, it was argued that Category:Gannett would be ambiguous (see the archived discussion at the category's talk page), which is a fair point (see Gannett (disambiguation)). (Pinging the category's creator, User:Maurreen) -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Now/Wrong VenueWP:C2D The main article is Gannett and having articles and categories mismatch hinders navigation. No argument is made here that there is some unique issue with the category space (like Queens New York and needing a plural category for Queens.) If an RM passes for the main article, I'll of course favor a rename here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So do you instead favor Category:Gannett, which was my original suggestion at WP:CFD/S? It just seems to me that the present name is not the right one under any circumstance. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more constructive with what I see as the solution:
Alt Rename to Category:Gannett to match the main article, Gannett. While I'm not convinced that's the best name for the main article, is is the name and I don't see a category space as being any more ambiguous in this case RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next to supporting the first proposal of nominator (see below), I'm also supporting this variant. It is not very likely that Gannett without disambiguator is taken for something else than the company. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Gannett (company). That keeps alignment with the article name (apart from the disambiguator) and does not cause ambiguity. Agree with nominator that the current name is the worst option. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2019 (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.
Support per consistency and Albert Kahn (architect). It is customary to use the article name, including any disambiguator. Oculi (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2019 (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: Ruins are not listed for being a ruin - the entries are ruined castles, churches. Being ruined is not a function.Arguably the majority of UK castles are ruined. FDent (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When listing is generally given on the basis of some architectural merit, doing so despite being ruined would seem notable.
Keep -- This is a sensible subdivision of buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (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: The page Artsakh itself is a dab, with two primary meanings - the republic and the Armenian name of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. For the republic we have Category:Republic of Artsakh, while this particular category is actually about the region under its Armenian name which violates WP:NPOV. For the name of the region there's already neutral Category:Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeistertalk 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while Artsakh has been a province, a kingdom and a republic in the course of times (and thus has three wp articles rather than one), it has always been roughly the same region. The province and the kingdom existed long before the (Russian) name Nagorno-Karabakh was invented. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marco but remove the Republic article from the scope definition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it should essentially be a container, with subcats and their main articles only. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename or convert to a category dab page. We normally try to make category names at least as unambiguous as article titles so it doesn't make sense to have a category with the same name as an (article space) dab page. DexDor(talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be an index page rather than a dab page. This is not about different regions using the same name, but about one region with different articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The maps on the articles show they are about different geographical areas (albeit in the same region of the world). Artsakh currently is a dab - and if it was changed to a SIA (especially a dab-like SIA) (assuming that's what you mean by "an index page") then that would still indicate that it's an ambiguous name (no primary topic) and an hence unsuitable name for a category. DexDor(talk) 22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The republic consists of a much smaller area, true, but the same applies to Hungary and Austria which are much smaller than before 1918 while we still have categories for Hungary and Austria including their history before 1918. It would have been more convincing if we would have had an overview article about the geographic history of Artsakh in the course of ages, but having a main article is not a mandatory requirement for having a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a matter of geography/history; it's a matter of wp categorization - it doesn't make sense for Category:Foobar to be a category (not a redirect) whilst Foobar is a dab page (or dab-like SIA). Either "Artsakh" is ambiguous (in which case it shouldn't be the title of a category) or it has a primary meaning (in which case there shouldn't be a dab page at that location). Are there any other such cases? DexDor(talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (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:Millennia in the Kingdom of Georgia[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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, the Kingdom of Georgia only existed in the 2nd millennium so a diffusion by millennium does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for consistency of categorization structure with other countries and because this would remove pages from categories such as Category:2nd millennium by country. DexDor(talk) 19:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC) adjusted DexDor(talk) 07:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks. Can you point to any other former countries that are categorized in the way you propose for KofG? DexDor(talk) 07:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That Dutch example doesn't have a categorization structure like you're proposing here. DexDor(talk) 22:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: True, while many former country categories could have a millennium parent category, in practice they often do not. I would consider this to be a matter of maintenance lagging behind. However I did find an example similar to Georgia namely Category:Kingdom of Hungary which has Category:2nd millennium in Hungary as a parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2019 (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.
Delete - this was renamed at cfd in 2014 and appears to have been recreated (from a redirect). Oculi (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The RC church has a separate hierarchy in Scotland from England and Wales. The most we should have is a container directing the use of the Scottish and English & Welsh cats. The RC church had no dioceses in GB in 1707-1801; its local head was a Vicar-General. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (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.
Mais oui - At first glance I assumed it WAS for "History of Iran". Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2019 (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: I am not sure if such a category is useful. The division of Delhi into "districts" is a fairly recent phenomenon. I believe the boundaries of these political/administrative divisions have also shifted a bit. Associating these with birth place/origin is not that easy. I have hardly seen people claiming to be from "North Delhi district". In most cases, people claim to be simply from "Dehi". There are currently 3 articles in this category Sikander Bakht, Subhadra Joshi, Saksham Yadav and I am not sure how they were classified as being from "North Delhi district". Could we delete this category please? DreamLinker (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The district has a population of 880,000. This is an appropriate manner of diffusing people from Delhi into more specific categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that districts as a formal division is a very recent phenomenon. More importantly, it is almost never applied to people. For example, I have never heard of someone being from "North Delhi district", most people will just say I am from "Delhi".--DreamLinker (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Saksham Yadav should then be added to Category:People from Delhi. The districts only exist since 1997 so for the time being it is impossible that it is a defining characteristic for a whole lot of people from Delhi. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2019 (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:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory[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.
Nominator's rationale: The Oregon Territory was not created until 1848. The Oregon Country categories for these should be used instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me as category creator, move accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aboutmovies: Deleting is something else than renaming. If you want to rename these categories you should clearly indicate what you propose as the new names, in the format:
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.
