Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 26



Category:Traditional subdivisions of Russia

 * 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 03:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merge Category:Traditional subdivisions of Russia to Category:Historical regions in Russia
 * Nominator's rationale: Both categories serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - not much point having 2 categories on the same subject satusuro 12:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporty -- They seem to be much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Architecture by year

 * 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 C13 and C14, no consensus on others. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1210s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture


 * Propose merging Category:1220s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1230s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1240s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1250s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1260s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1270s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1280s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1290s architecture to Category:13th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1300s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1310s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1320s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1330s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1340s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1350s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1360s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1370s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1380s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1390s architecture to Category:14th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1400s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1410s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1430s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1440s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1460s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1480s architecture to Category:15th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1540s architecture to Category:16th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1560s architecture to Category:16th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1590s architecture to Category:16th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1680s architecture to Category:17th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1699 architecture to Category:17th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1690s architecture to Category:17th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1750 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1751 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1752 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1753 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1754 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1755 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1756 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1757 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1758 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1759 architecture to Category:18th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1890 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1891 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1892 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1893 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1894 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1895 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1896 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1897 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1898 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:1899 architecture to Category:19th-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2000 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2001 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2002 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2003 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2004 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2005 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2006 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2007 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2008 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2009 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2010 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2011 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2012 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2013 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2014 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2015 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2016 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2017 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2018 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2019 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture
 * Propose merging Category:2020 architecture to Category:21st-century architecture


 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Once the content is properly located in a buildings and structure category, there is mostly only the by year article left. So navigation is improved by upmerging to a century category.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternate I don't think it's appropriate to nominate the 21st century categories with the 12/13/14/15th century ones. The 20th century categories are divided by decade, so the 21st century ones should also be so divided. It is a poor idea to not match the structure of the 20th century category tree for recent categories -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for all the 13th and 14th century decades. Procedural keep for 21st century: this should be a separate discussion.  There are also a load of empty annual 13th and 14th century year categories which need to be culled, or will this happen automatically because they are empty.  In the long term, I think the buildings and structures tree is the right home for the individual articles, with centiries architecture categories holding annual articles (but no subcategories).  Somewhere closer to the present, we are probably going to need decade categories.  I note that the earliest annual category with more than a main article is for 1735, and I expect that needs emptying into the buildings and structures tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But if you move the building articles to that tree what is left? I wager, with a handful of exceptions, only the decade or year articles.  The reason the earlier centuries have content in the year categories is that someone has not review those.  So I don't see a reason to keep the current century because it was reviewed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not really compatible with how we manage the categories of these years-related articles.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:March 14 alliance

 * 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 03:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed rename: Category:March 14 alliance to Category:March 14 Alliance
 * Nominator's rationale; per March 14 Alliance. Charles Essie (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- Clearly the correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Per WP:C2D, Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Uncategorised Italy articles

 * 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.

to Category:Italy
 * The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging uncategorised italy articles
 * Propose merging Category:Uncategorised Italian geography articles to Category:Italy Category:Geography of Italy DexDor (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories (currently) contain just one article. For a maintenance category being empty isn't normally a reason for deletion - and the category text says "This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis, and should not be considered useless.". However, that does not appear to be the case - the article in this category has been there since 2012. If this form of categorization grew we could end up with a large number of "Uncategorised Foo articles" categories (approximately one for every 2 normal categories). This form of categorization places article pages (not talk pages) under a Wikiproject category. This may be a form of WP:OC. The normal practice if an article can't be moved to an appropriate lower level category (e.g. because such a category hasn't yet been created) is to leave the article in the higher level category.
 * Note: There are a dozen or so similar categories (perhaps they should all be under a "Uncategorized articles by topic" category!) but for most topics we do not have a category like this (e.g. only one other country has an "uncategorised geography" category). If this CFD results in delete/merge then the other similar categories should be CFDed. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but the target for Category:Uncategorised Italian geography articles should obviously be Category:Geography of Italy. If the articles ought to be further down the tree, that can be adjusted manually.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've adjusted the nomination. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I could see a cleanup category called Category:Uncategorized WikiProject Geography articles and Category:Uncategorized WikiProject Italy articles, as a per Wikiproject cleanup category. It would be filled and emptied by bot, where articles that have the wikiproject banner but no visible categories get categorized. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be pretty rare for an article to have a wikiproject banner, but not be in a reader-side category so editors would be unlikely to check such a category regularly (especially for a defunct wikiproject). A database report (Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/Uncategorized pages) would be better than a category as editors could watchlist it. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete presumably someone could just as easily add italy-stub or Category:Italy to any of these articles and likely it would sorted to where it belongs in good time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlossuarez and Dexdor. No reason why this can't be placed in the structure proper through a basic category or stub template, or generated on a page via a database report. Tagging articles with a useless temporary category doesn't seem like an elegant solution here, especially as adding useful categories is such a quick and simple task for anyone with a little knowledge about categorisation (as opposed to, say, prose clean up categories which may be very time-consuming or complex issues). SFB 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Tributes to Tommy

 * 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 03:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Tributes to Tommy to Category:The Who tribute albums and Category:Tommy (rock opera)
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALLCAT, unnecessary diffusion, and precedent with outcome from CfD for Tributes to Beatles albums. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Further, its creator user:Bossanoven is blocked indefinitely. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge not a viable category. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Saint Helena stubs

 * 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Saint Helena stubs to Category:Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is sized well for a stub category, but the tags include all three areas. And since the Saint Helena tags can apply to the dependency at large, I propose simply renaming the category. Dawynn (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but reorganise -- I am trouble by this one. We have stub templates for Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, but the former is essentially a military base and the latter barely populated.  While administratively the other two may be dependencies of St Helena, this is for convenience, becsaue they are too small to have a governor.  It would probably be better to put the few stubs for the two in the parent British Atlantic Terrories stubs.  Both are hundred of miles from St Helena.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Can someone please close this request? Dawynn (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 associated with the British National Party

 * 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 03:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People associated with the British National Party to Category:British National Party people
 * Nominator's rationale: This is part of a series of categories for people linked closely to a specific British political party who don't qualify for membership of the appropriate politicians category (Category:British people by political party). However all the other categories in the series follow the format of "Party X people" with this being the only exception. For the sake of consistency I reckon this should be moved. Keresaspa (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- "Associated with" is too vague. Since many people regard the party as obnoxious, it is importnat that it cannot be used as an ATTACK category, where the link is ephemeral.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support proposed choice is more concise and helps discourage bad categorisations of people in the same strain of politics, but not exactly linked to the party. SFB 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:Syriac political parties

 * 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 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed merger: Category:Syriac political parties into Category:Assyrian political parties
 * Nominator's rationale: These two categories are about the exact same thing. Syriac is just another name for Assyrian. Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge -- Assyrian appears to be the usual name today. Syriac is an obsolete term for their language.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.