Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 25



Category:Byzantine Thessalonian historians

 * 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) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting byzantine thessalonian historians


 * Nominator's rationale: typical WP:SMALLCAT; upmerge and delete Constantine  ✍  19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting byzantine thessalonian grammarians


 * Nominator's rationale: typical WP:SMALLCAT; upmerge and delete Constantine  ✍  19:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Combined similar items. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support -- If there were five people, I would have voted to merge to Category:Byzantine writers from Thessalonili, but I think it is the same three people in both. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not correct, it is 5 articles in 2 categories (only 1 overlapping article). But for the nomination it does not really matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support upmerge to Category:Byzantine Thessalonian writers (category to remain) Hugo999 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not a dual upmerge, i.e. also to Category:Byzantine historians and Category:Byzantine Thessalonian grammarians respectively? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2018 (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:6th-century Belgian people

 * 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 Frankish equivalents. Timrollpickering 20:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:6th-century Belgian people
 * Propose deleting Category:7th-century Belgian people
 * Propose deleting Category:8th-century Belgian people
 * Propose deleting Category:8th-century Belgian women
 * Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic categories, in this period there were no people that can be described as Belgian. The articles will remain in Category:Medieval Belgian saints and in an xth-century Christian saints category so I do not think that any merge is needed here. That may become different with categories of later centuries and with Category:Medieval Belgian saints, so that's why I have nominated these four categories separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support delete although I can see an argument that Belgian or at least Belgic kinda works as an ethnicity rather than a nationality. But I'm not going to sweat it too much. Le Deluge (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The "anachronistic" comment applies to pre-1830 Belgian people according to some people (see proposal re Category:18th-century Belgian artists). But what century category will the 6th to 8th century Belgian people/women fall into; they should have a nationality by century category as well as a Christian saints by century category. Frankish people seems appropriate e.g. Category:6th-century Frankish people (Merovingians?), But as the Franks stop at Category:7th-century Frankish people so I would propose retaining Category:8th-century Belgian people (and women) at least. And sometime there may be some early non-saintly Belgians! Hugo999 (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not mandatory to categorize people by nationality or ethnicity. Especially in the early Middle Ages that was often not very clear. I would support categorizing them as Franks if and only if sources confirm that they were Franks, but that can be done regardless the outcome of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And by the way, Category:8th-century Frankish people and Category:8th-century Frankish women do exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * remove these as anachronistic. After Charlemagne, his empire was divided into three parts.  Until his death, we can use "Frankish" without problem.  The three parts became France, Germany (often Holy Roman Empire) and a middle kingdom which fragmented.  I am not sure what WP is calling this, but Lorraine (Lotharingia) and Burgundy would be options, but are today related to smaller areas.  We need merge targets but I am not sure what.  Peterkingiron (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Frankish equivalents Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright with merge, after all, my earlier objection was too bureaucratic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Frankish equivalents per Laurel Lodged and per precedent with Category:7th-century Iraqi people.GreyShark (dibra) 11:19, 30 May 2018 (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:Governors of Nanyo

 * 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: Moved. Timrollpickering 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Governors of Nanyo to Category:Governors of the South Pacific Mandate
 * Nominator's rationale: In existing WP articles the territory in question is called the South Pacific Mandate, not Nanyo. The choice of name achieved consensus a few years ago at Talk:South Pacific Mandate. This discussion was in response to the South Pacific Mandate article having been boldly moved to Nanyo, from which consensus reverted it. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Addition I forgot to mention that Category:Governors of Nanyo is currently a subcategory of Category:South Pacific Mandate and contains the page Governor of the South Pacific Mandate. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to Category:Governors of the South Pacific Mandate. It makes sense to have everything match. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposal is a bit anachronistic, isn't it? There wasn't really a South Pacific Mandate after Japan withdrew from the League of Nations. Consistency is good, but perhaps a split of the article or a reconsideration of the 2014/2015 discussions is in order. Dekimasu よ! 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since currently all articles in this category use the term "South Pacific Mandate", a new discussion (if needed) should take place at article level, not here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for a split. The article says, "When the islands became legally a League of Nations Mandate, Japan administered them as Japanese territory and as part of the Japanese Empire. This situation continued even after Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in 1935 and lost its legal claim to administer the islands."  The mandate was only formally revoked in 1947. —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Move as proposed to match the articles. —  AjaxSmack  03:37, 29 June 2018 (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:LGBT romance films

 * 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. Timrollpickering 16:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT romance films to Category:LGBT-related romance films
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories under Category:LGBT-related films by genre.  snap snap  (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Grutness... wha?   02:23, 26 May 2018 (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:G.E.M. (singer) albums

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:G.E.M. (singer) albums to Category:G.E.M. albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Per G.E.M. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support; current name is pointless over-disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:03, 26 May 2018 (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.