Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 14



Cities and towns of Ukraine built in

 * 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/merge to "Establishments", i.e.

– Fayenatic  L ondon 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‎ to Category:Establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth‎ (merge to existing)
 * Category:Cities and towns built in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Category:Establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (merge to existing)
 * Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Russian Empire‎ to Category:Establishments in the Russian Empire‎ (merge to the category below)
 * Category:Cities and towns built in the Russian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Russian Empire
 * Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Soviet Union‎ to Category:Establishments in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic


 * Propose deleting Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Cities and towns built in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (becomes empty after the above delete)
 * Propose deleting Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Russian Empire‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Cities and towns built in the Russian Empire (becomes empty after the above delete)
 * Propose merging Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Soviet Union‎ to Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union
 * Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, trivial intersections between current and former polities. Also there is room for discussion whether we should have a tree for establishment of populated places by former polity at all, since currently we only have an established tree of Category:Populated places by year of establishment. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Consistency is undermined when Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union will be preserved. According to the nominator's rationale, that category should be removed as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As said, there is room for discussion, so I'm open to deleting Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Mixed opinions -- We DO need "Populated places by former polity" Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‎ should be renamed and repurposed as Category:Populated places in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‎.  However most of the rest of the tree seems to be about the polity at the date of them being founded.  Category:New settlements in the Soviet Union might be an appropriate category, but will this not be dealt with by a 19xx establishments category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly I really think it's not a good idea to have cities categorized by every former polity, it may well lead to a lot of category clutter in articles about mainland European cities. And besides it's a typical example of User:DexDor's WP:DNWAUC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the author of that essay (and be careful about pinging). DexDor(talk) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As discussion has resumed, but there still seems to be some confusion over the purpose of the categories, since some want to keep categories for places that were occupied during former polities, but these categories seem to be for places built during former polities, presumably meaning the same as established.
 * Delete The only categorization a town/city needs is by the location - i.e. the (current) country/region it is in - that is sufficient to place each town/city in a category. Where a town/city has a date of establishment then it can also be put in a by century category (example) (although that's much less defining).  Categorizing by what country a town/city was in when it was built (is that the same thing as when it was established?) is unnecessary, unlikely to be useful (as many/most towns/cities don't have a clear "built" date and/or haven't changed country) and tends to lead to articles being category-tagged for no clear reason (e.g. the Zhdanivka article makes no mention of the Soviet Union or any dates before 2001 so does not belong in a Soviet Union category). DexDor(talk) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on relisting comment (as nominator), the nomination started under the assumption that this category is about establishments, and the suggestion to have categories occupied by former polities would be a step in the opposite direction which I strongly oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question to user:Aleksandr Grigoryev: what grounds did you have for adding the category to Zhdanivka? Do you know whether it was established during the Soviet era? – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer referring to the Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia, Zhdanivka was founded in 1924 as Novo-Zhdanivka and in 1966 it was reestablished as the city of Zhdanivka. Here is a link . This also could be confirmed at the Donetsk Region State Administration . Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe it would be better rename to category similar to ones there are for New York City (i.e. Category:1624 establishments in the Dutch Empire, Category:Establishments in New Netherland, Category:Populated places established by the Dutch West India Company). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2017 (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.

Hyperlocal in the United Kingdom

 * 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 "Local media in Foo". There is clear consensus that these categories need to be renamed, as "hyperlocal" is difficult to define as a word, let alone in a category scheme. Suggestions of creating Category:Local media, as well as outright deleting categories arose, but lacked the discussion and support to be established.  ℯ  xplicit  03:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in the United Kingdom to Category:Hyperlocal media in the United Kingdom
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in the United States to Category:Hyperlocal media in the United States
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in England to Category:Hyperlocal media in England
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in Scotland to Category:Hyperlocal media in Scotland
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in California to Category:Hyperlocal media in California
 * Propose renaming Category:Hyperlocal in Massachusetts to Category:Hyperlocal media in Massachusetts
 * Nominator's rationale: "Hyperlocal" is an adjective, not a noun, so just saying something is "hyperlocal" doesn't actually clarify what it is, and the categories accordingly have to specify hyperlocal what. In this context it refers to media startups, generally on the web, but even a hyperlocal media startup can't just be referred to as "hyperlocal" without the noun "media" attached. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking additional comments on alternative proposals for US categories
 * Rename – subcats of Category:Hyperlocal media. Oculi (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * REname but to Category:Local media in the United Kingdom, also England and Scotland. "Hyperlocal" is a NEOLOGISM, which I have never heard of in UK, where there are a mass of local newspapers, community radio stations, and parish newaletters, which are never so-described.  If the term is used in USA, I would support the change there, with the UK items parented to the hyperlocal parent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename per Peterkingiron for UK categories (this is a term i've never heard used), could consider an upmerge to Category:Media in the United Kingdom since this is a small category. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename all to Local media. I checked a few US websites of media that were listed in the category and if they mention anything about it then it's "local", not "hyperlocal". Also I wonder if we shouldn't upmerge the California and Masschusetts categories: as they are a child category of a media by state category already, isn't that local enough by definition? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – it is easy to find mentions of hyperlocal media in the UK, eg The Guardian. Oculi (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename (if they remain at all) but also clean out. Someone has seriously misinterpreted the word "hyperlocal" when populating Category:Hyperlocal in the United States.  It appears that  might be the origin of this misunderstanding.  Hyperlocal media is not just local: It's supposed to mean media that is focused on some fraction of what's local.  Hyperlocal media would include newspapers or websites that cover a specific neighborhood or post code, or even smaller, or low-power broadcasters that target a specific subcommunity.  It appears that some big-media types saw the word "hyperlocal" somewhere and tried to expand the word to apply to anything that was a fraction of a metropolitan area, including the things that we'd traditionally just call "local", since they'd already refactored "local" as their self-description to mean "metropolitan" or "regional" years ago.  I'd say Category:Student media is a subcategory of hyperlocal media.  Category:Radio stations in the United States by state surely is not; that's crazy.  Maybe we need to split it into Category:Local media and Category:Hyperlocal media; but because of mass-media industry marketing terms, it's difficult to tell if there's a difference between local and metro/regional anymore, at least in the U.S. --Closeapple (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Does anyone have an objection with me cleaning out these "hyperlocal" categories of things that are clearly not hyperlocal and putting other things in? Maybe that would make things clearer. --Closeapple (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin comment: You may certainly add members during the discussion, as this can be helpful in demonstrating the usefulness of a category. However, please do not remove things in a way that cannot easily be traced, as these categories seem to be the only ones for local media at the moment. It would be feasible to create a trial parent category for local media, and tag it for discussion here. However, it would probably be best simply to list here (in this discussion) the items that you think fit "hyperlocal", and the current members that do not. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know what you think should remain in the category after purging (but I agree with Fayenatic london that it's much better to just mention it in this discussion rather than instantaneously starting to remove articles). Depending on the left-overs, it might lead to a withdrawal or change of my previous comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As requested, I'll take a shot at what's in the category now (numbers only to distinguish from all the levels of asterisks):
 * Category:Communications in the United States by state: remove &mdash; all communications in the US?! Really?
 * Category:Daily newspapers published by Community Newspaper Holdings‎: remove &mdash; Local, not hyperlocal. And this category isn't even correct: It includes weeklies.  It should be renamed.
 * Category:Media in the United States by city: remove &mdash; Mix of worldwide, national, metro, local, and hyperlocal &mdash; very small proportion hyperlocal. It even contains categories like Category:Media in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex‎.  Does anyone really think Category:Media companies based in New York City means "hyperlocal"?
 * TAPinto: possibly keep &mdash; This is plausably "hyperlocal", as perhaps some of the franchisees are concentrating on a subset of the local area, particularly in Union County. Worth noting that TAPinfo uses the word "local" consistently on the external link, and only a video from another source uses the word "hyperlocal".
 * Bluffton Today: probably remove &mdash; This is the sort of thing that big media owners have tried to rename "hyperlocal" now that they wiped out all the local media and renamed metro media "local". This is a town of 12,000 &mdash; towns like this used to have 2 independent dailies competing with each other sometimes.
 * Community Impact Newspaper: remove &mdash; Another example of a media chain trying to use the buzzword "hyperlocal". Look at the editions in the Wikipedia article: They have 3 huge metros, and the other editions often cover cities of 50,000+.
 * GateHouse Media: remove &mdash; Straight-up newspaper owner with metro dailies, weekly satellite papers for local/parts of counties, and a bunch of weekly shopper papers. They have reporters covering multiple counties at once; almost zero chance that any reporter is assigned to a beat smaller than a city.
 * The Groton Line: probably remove &mdash; Seems to be independent and local, but why use the word "hyperlocal" for it? It's a town of 10,000 people.
 * Patch Media: weak remain &mdash; even though their navigation appears to only be town names at this point, I think the whole point of this company was to encourage hyperlocal coverage
 * Media in Seattle: remove &mdash; just plain miscategorized; see Category:Media in Seattle for normal parent categories
 * TribLocal: marginal keep &mdash; redirect, but based on the sources at Chicago Tribune it might count, since the point was apparently for the Chicago Tribune to have "hyperlocal Chicago-area community news" and the workers "mostly covered school board and municipal meetings": sounds like it could have potentially been hyperlocal, or maybe it was just a replacement for what used to be covered by local newspapers, like the other so-called "hyperlocal" media
 * Twin Cities Daily Planet: keep &mdash; apparently has become a niche media outlet, if it wasn't before
 * Local news (which is in Category:Hyperlocal media) &mdash; self-evidently "local" not "hyperlocal"
 * To find media that is even marginally "hyperlocal" in the current media environment, I mostly dug down into some of the media categories for major cities. Some I found, though many of them have a circulation larger than some small-town newspapers:
 * Category:Student newspapers &mdash; they usually give extensive coverage to a very specific community
 * probably some pirate radio stations and some stations in Category:Unlicensed radio stations in the United States, which have limited geographic target: e.g. KCHUNG Radio, maybe Radio First Termer
 * Chicago area neighborhood newspapers: The Gazette; Daily Southtown; Hyde Park Herald/Lakefront Outlook; North Lawndale Community News; Our Neighborhood Times (Hegewisch, Chicago); Southeast Chicago Observer
 * New York City sub-borough newspapers: Bronx Times-Reporter (3 editions for different parts of The Bronx); The Main Street WIRE (Roosevelt Island); Mott Haven Herald (sections of The Bronx); The Tribeca Trib (Lower Manhattan) Riverdale Review (Riverdale, Bronx); The Villager (Lower Manhattan); The Wave of Long Island (The Rockaways);
 * New York City borough-wide newspapers with neighborhood editions: The Brooklyn Paper; Queens Chronicle; Queens Tribune/The Press of Southeast Queens
 * Cool In Your Code &mdash; is arguably hyperlocal because of its episode theme; the website doesn't seem to drill down any further than borough level though
 * That's a lot of stuff, but maybe it helps. I think "hyperlocal" was originally put forth as coverage of a small fraction of a neighborhood, then when the bloggers didn't come along and provide them free content, then it became neighborhood-sized or fraction of a city, and now the mainstream media is trying to push it as meaning city-sized (or any other kind of "send us content for free because we don't pay reporters to go there anymore") so they can misuse the word "local" to brand anything smaller than a country. --Closeapple (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your thorough work. Contrary to (supposedly) your expectations I haven't changed my mind though, as it merely seemed to confirm that it's not doable for (other) editors to distinguish between hyperlocal and local. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably maintainable only if the criteria are defined on the category and the subject being called "hyperlocal" isn't sufficient on its own; otherwise I think the distinction might get lost again in a cloud of primary-source self-labeling hype. I'm not even sure "local media" can be distinguished from others anymore, without a parallel category with vague criteria.  Is The Guardian still "local"?  Certainly USA Today isn't, but someone will undoubtedly come along and try to put newspapers by state under "local media", and USA Today has to be based somewhere.  Broadcasting has similar issues: Britain has a pretty clear distinction between "national" and "local" broadcasters, but in the North America all broadcasters are licensed as local.  So are all television and radio stations in North America inherently "local" even some can only be heard for 30 miles and others can be heard 1000 miles away, and some carry no local content while others are exclusively locally-focused, and the signal range and content often aren't related?  (Example: Teenagers in London used to pick up WABC (AM) in the 1960s.)  The whole thing is just asking for a mess, I guess. --Closeapple (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the US one has "communications in the United States by state" as a subcat. Which in turn, going to California, has such items as Pacific Bell, which is unlikely to be "hyperlocal" as the (former) telephone provider for 30,000,000 people over 100,000 square miles of California. If these are for really local news media, they need to be massively purged or if they cannot be sufficiently defined, just axed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless the outcome of the discussion with respect to the name of the category, I agree that at least the two by-state subcategories should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2017 (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:Financial institutions

 * 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: relist again with sub-category, at 2017 June 1. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose dispersing Category:Financial institutions between Category:Financial services and Category:Financial services companies
 * Nominator's rationale: disperse per WP:OVERLAPCAT, Financial institutions are institutions providing financial services, that cannot be separated in distinct categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If needed, I'll be happy to assist in implementation of the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have tagged the talk page with project banners to generate alerts.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:45, 14 May 2017 (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:Medieval and Early Modern Romanian writers

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Medieval and Early Modern Romanian writers to Category:Early Modern Romanian writers
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, there aren't any medieval writers in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2017 (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:Jews in Ottoman Palestine

 * 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 Category:Jews in Ottoman Palestine and Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine, no consensus on recreating Category:Old Yishuv.  (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Jews in Ottoman Palestine to Category:Jews of Old Yishuv
 * Propose renaming Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine to Category:Rabbis of Old Yishuv
 * Propose splitting Category:Yishuv to Category:Old Yishuv (original Category:Old Yishuv was merged into Category:Jews and Judaism in Palestine (region) in 2011, voted by a single editor, who is now topic banned)
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article for Jewish community in Ottoman-ruled Galilee and Jerusalem is Old Yishuv; the article Ottoman Palestine is effectively a redirect for Palestine article history section, which has little relevance to the history of Ottoman-era Jewish communities named Old Yishuv, which resided in South-Western parts of Ottoman Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 10:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a straight forward name at present. There is no need for overly technical names when general ones work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose first two proposals Plain name is preferable. Would prefer that the article Old Yishuv be renamed also. But that's a different process. Need to think about the third proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion concerning the proposal, but I would like to point out that it should be "of the Old Yishuv" (not "of Old Yishuv"). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me, as I set up one of these to implement the previous CFDs at 2012 Nov 13 and 2012 Dec 12, splitting between Ottoman and British/Mandatory Palestine. I'm inclined to oppose because "Old Yishuv" is
 * (i) an unfamiliar term for many readers, and
 * (ii) inconsistently used – the article Yishuv states that A distinction is sometimes drawn between the Old Yishuv and the New Yishuv, the threshold of New Yishuv apparently being either 1860s or 1882, both well within the Ottoman period as opposed to the British mandate. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose After looking into this more I have come to realize that this proposal is not only not a good one, but it is a stealth proposal that would redefine the parameters of the category. Some rightly argue "Ottoman Palestine" might better be "Ottoman Syria". However I would point out that we go by common names, and the common name for this area in the west at the time, and often in more recent writing is Ottoman Palestine or just Palestine. The fact that there were some levels of political and social connection throughout greater Syria rule does not negate the fact that especially for Jews, being in what is called Palestine was the central unifying fact. However this proposal here would shift a category that covers all Jews from 1516 to 1917, to one that only covers those whose families had come to Palestine by 1882 at the latest (some might not accept such a later date). There is another problem besides removing the 35,000 who came in the 1st Aliyah that ended in 1903 and the 35,000 in the Second Aliyah from 1904 to 1914. In some uses people can be considered "of the old Yishuv" that were born after 1882 but whose families had been in Palestine long before that year. This not only needlessly narrows the category but makes its very limits of definition even more murky. This is a redefinition of the category, and yet not even straightforward proposed as such. It is a bad proposal that moves Wikipedia away from clearly defined categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2017 (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.

Ancient law

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  03:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:493 BC in law to Category:493 BC
 * Propose merging Category:449 BC in law to Category:449 BC
 * Propose merging Category:421 BC in law to Category:421 BC


 * Propose merging Category:387 BC in law to Category:387 BC
 * Propose merging Category:241 BC in law to Category:241 BC
 * Propose merging Category:205 BC in law to Category:205 BC
 * Propose merging Category:196 BC in law to Category:196 BC
 * Propose merging Category:192 BC in law to Category:192 BC and Category:2nd century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:191 BC in law to Category:191 BC and Category:2nd century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:188 BC in law to Category:188 BC
 * Propose merging Category:123 BC in law to Category:123 BC and Category:2nd century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:98 BC in law to Category:98 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:95 BC in law to Category:95 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:89 BC in law to Category:89 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:85 BC in law to Category:85 BC
 * Propose merging Category:82 BC in law to Category:82 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:67 BC in law to Category:67 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:66 BC in law to Category:66 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:62 BC in law to Category:62 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:58 BC in law to Category:58 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:56 BC in law to Category:56 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:52 BC in law to Category:52 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:39 BC in law to Category:39 BC
 * Propose merging Category:2 BC in law to Category:2 BC and Category:1st century BC in law
 * Propose merging Category:212 in law to Category:212 and Category:3rd century in law
 * Propose merging Category:301 in law to Category:301 and Category:4th century in law
 * Propose merging Category:303 in law to Category:303 and Category:4th century in law
 * Propose merging Category:313 in law to Category:313 and Category:4th century in law
 * Propose merging Category:397 in law to Category:397 and Category:4th century in law


 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all categories contain only one article and it's quite unlikely these categories will be populated any better. A number of categories don't need a double upmerge to a Law-by-century category because their article is already in a Treaties-by-century subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (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:Junction, Illinois

 * 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/merge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting junction, illinois


 * Nominator's rationale: Likely to always be empty: a very small village with nothing of note. (Gallatin High School (Illinois) was in this category, but it's not actually in Junction; it just has a Junction postal address.) Closeapple (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to parent Category:Villages in Gallatin County, Illinois. (It is currently in that one, but it is better to say "merge" than "delete:, in case someone removes it from there before the discussion closes.)  – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Fayenatic. Every town or village that exists does not automatically get an eponymous category just to contain itself — there would need to be a significant number of spinoff topics in the town or village to file here before the category was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/upmerge per nom. Neutralitytalk 05:05, 22 May 2017 (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.