Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 26



Category:1868 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg

 * 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 to Category:1868 establishments in Germany and Category:1860s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg. – Fayenatic  L ondon 00:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1868 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg to Category:1868 establishments in Germany (and perhaps to Category:Oldenburg (state))
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg by year becomes empty after the above merge
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in a whole century. With respect to the former merge target, I suppose Germany is a better target than Europe, since in 1868 Oldenburg was a member of the North German Confederation. Given the content of the one article, I'm not sure if merging to the latter target is even needed, the article doesn't give any insight into the relationship with the former state of Oldenburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

* Comment, left a note about this nomination on WikiProject Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge and delete, but I've created the parent category Category:1860s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg because the State Railway and Landesbank were both founded then. On a different note: why is the overall category called Category:Oldenburg (state) when it seems to be exclusively about the Grand Duchy and the main article is the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg? Does that need addressing too? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the People subcat, the Treaties subcat and in the unsubcatted articles there is also a bit about the Duchy of Oldenburg and the Free State of Oldenburg. If you feel that the Duchy, Grand Duchy and Free State should strictly be separated, feel free to do so, but for me it wouldn't have a high priority. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2016 (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.

Establishments in Siam top categories

 * 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/delete as specified. MER-C 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merge Category:Establishments in Siam by decade to Category:Establishments in Thailand by decade
 * Propose merge Category:Establishments in Siam by year to Category:Establishments in Thailand by year
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Siam as it becomes empty after the above mergers
 * Nominator's rationale: merge since Siam and Thailand are the same country (article Siam redirects to Thailand). In order to avoid a misunderstanding: this proposal does not suggest a rename of e.g. Category:1830s establishments in Siam‎ to Category:1830s establishments in Thailand‎, it only aims at parenting Category:1830s establishments in Siam‎ directly to Category:Establishments in Thailand by decade in order to avoid duplication of trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per well-explained nomination. It will ease finding what one's looking for by starting with what we call the place now. Category redirects may be useful, which I leave to discretion of others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Marcocapelle & Carlossuarez46's reasoning. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also support keeping some of the Categories as redirects per Carlossuarez46;s idea. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree on this. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I found three more of these cases, see nomination of February 27. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2016 (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:Stefy songs

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting stefy songs


 * Propose deleting ron wasserman songs


 * Propose deleting liam lynch (musician) songs


 * Nominator's rationale: Only consist of one article. Non-popular artist. Wisnu Aji (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the parent category Songs by artist which states - "This category is for songs by recording artist. Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded." Also, what is a "Non-popular artist"?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments. I've merged the three nominations. The discussion should focus on whether it's sensible in general to have songs categories per artist if they only have one song article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the central tenet of categorisation, that we categorise an article by its defining characteristics. The number of songs is irrelevant. (Chelsea (song) may well not be notable but this is a matter for afd, not cfd.) Oculi (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of established category tree. The size of the category does not matter for search purposes. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (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.