Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

[edit]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BethNaught

[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: Speedy delete (non-admin closure). JDDJS (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In July an IP user I blocked, User talk:64.134.169.159, accused me of socking by using that same IP address, placing a tag. Then Spiderjerky created the category, presumably to make the red category link blue. The IP geolocates to the wrong continent and I removed the tag because it's absurd. Can the category please be deleted, it reflects unjustly negatively on me, and besides it was created essential by proxy for a vandal (if unintentionally so). BethNaught (talk) 15:16, 26 February 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:First Ministers of Northern Ireland

[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: relisted here (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The First Minister and deputy First Minister are joint positions in Northern Ireland. One cannot exist without the other. This category implies that they are not equal, so I'm suggesting the name change so that dFMs are included. The two positions are, in a way, 'Joint First Ministers' but the category needs to be changed to reflect their joint authority. st170e 14:04, 26 February 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:American runestones

[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: rename to Category:Purported North American runestones (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no authenticated American runestones. If anyone can think of a title that makes that clear and is guideline compliant, a rename might be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Manually purge all non runic stores. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Started to do that. How about 'possible' or 'suggested'? Doug Weller talk 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Category:Stones with possible runic inscriptions found in North America? Nasty, but if others can live with it so can I. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:58, 26 February 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.

Provinces of Roman North Africa

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Rationale There were no Roman provinces in Africa that were not also in North Africa. Despite some probing missions to Ethiopia, no conquests were made. Also, there is no such thing as "Roman North Africa"; the term is ahistorical. There is just the Roman presence in the the continent of Africa and the Roman province called, confusingly, Africa. There was also a civil Diocese of Africa in the late Empire but that was completely different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rome has been notified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 26 February 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:Swedish expatriate footballers 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: upmerge to all parents. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is long-standing consensus that these kind of triple intersections are not worthwhile. Category should be deleted and replaced with Category:Swedish expatriate footballers and Category:Expatriate footballers in Norway. GiantSnowman 08:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 08:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GiantSnowman: I apologise for giving offence with the word "stealth". Nevertheless the point about overlooking the parent remains – the nomination would remove the member pages from all three parents, and in the case of one parent that would be the majority of its population. As a point of general application, please do not nominate a category for deletion when its contents would be valid members of its parent categories; deletion is a different process from merger, as it removes the contents from all the parent hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 18 March 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.

Winners of statistical awards

[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, these people received an award because they are notable statisticians; but they haven't become notable by having received the award. The winners have been listified already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 26 February 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.

Medieval cities

[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 Moscow and Rome per nomination as revised; merge Category:14th century in Barcelona to Category:Medieval Barcelona and Category:14th century in Spain; no consensus on Paris. – Fayenatic London 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently mostly one article per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. And yet again the nominator does not notify users of his nominations. Smallcat does not apply as all of these categories have potential for growth, unless the nominator is suggesting nothing else happened in Paris the 14th century? The Paris categories now all have more than 1 article. Moscow was actually its own country: see Grand Duchy of Moscow. Tim! (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course more things have happened in Paris in the 14th century, but the question is whether more notable things have happened. The fact that Moscow was its own country doesn't say much about the potential for articles about the city of Moscow. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all except Rome. Rome is the only one where the target is both a good fit and not to be overwhelmed. Paris has enough going on. While Mosco and Barcelona have very questionable targets. What is 13th century Russia anyway? If I remember correctly the Kingdom of Aragon didn't cover Barcelona, Barcelona was a distinct County of Barcelona, part of the domains of the Crown of Aragon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_26&oldid=1088119998"