Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 28 August 30 >

August 29

Category:Barbaricum

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. Further recategorization between Category:Ancient Roman geography and Category:Germania is left to editors' discretion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, too few articles about Barbaricum available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at the German Wiki category, it has 2 articles and 2 categories. I've added the second article, but the category de:Kategorie:Römischer Import (Barbaricum) only has 4 articles, none of which yet appears on English Wikipedia. So, as the creator, I'm inclined to support the upmerge unless other editors think the category could be further populated. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the proposal. It's a period of history that interests me and I cannot see much growth potential, really, so it would be best to move the two articles to the wider Roman geographic category. CravinChillies 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly merge but I wonder if the right course is not to downmerge to Category:Germania, which the article says is used by academics almost interchangeably with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 30 August 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:English revolutionaries

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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as
WP:CATDEF, inter alia. CravinChillies 17:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Surely revulutionaries are people who actively want to destroy or overthrow the current order, they don't need to have been successful (or even have participated in a 'revolution') to get the epithet. Sionk (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that rebels aren't any different from revolutionairies, feel free to nominate a merge of the rebels category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That wasn't the point I was making, or what I said. Otherwise I'd be agreeing with you (and anyway you argued for deletion not merger). Sionk (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a concrete example, does Robert Kett need to be in an English rebels category, an English revolutionaries category, or both? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sionk. It needs a note clarifying it only relates to pre-Act of Union. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 6 September 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:British revolutionaries

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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This may be a
selbert 17:18, 29 August 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:Lyrian Novels

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
MOS:CAPS reasons), but it's not needed for just one novel. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 29 August 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:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19#Category:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia. ℯxplicit 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Current name is too bulky. Equivalent Catholic province is called Perth. Disambiguation needed for the state of the same name. Would also accept ALT of Category:Province of Western Australia that matches lead article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed: i.e., to Category:Western Australia (ecclesiastical province). I wonder why the lead article title doesn't include the word "ecclesiastical" as you would not expect Province of Western Australia to be a religious entity. CravinChillies 16:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, can't we just rename it to Category:Province of Western Australia? It looks like the name of the main article isn't ambiguous, i.e. there is no other entity with the same name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge all province categories to Category:Anglican Church of Australia and consider merging the provincial articles, which are all stubs, into a table or navigational template (as is done for the Episcopal Church). As is typical in Anglican practice, there is next to nothing to say about the provinces other than which dioceses are members and which diocese's bishop is the titular metropolitan. This is particularly so in Australia, where the provinces are pretty small. As categories they appear to add an unnecessary level of navigation. Now, I'm not from Australia, so it's possible that there's more to provinces there than I see, but what I see is that there is only slightly more to it here than in my church. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A bit drastic. What about a single category for all Australian Anglican provinces? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that, for the other Anglican cases I know of, the provinces are unimportant, and our categorization and articles reflect that by putting the provinces in a table and the dioceses in a single category of all dioceses in that church. The provinces don't even have articles because essentially all you can say is "these dioceses are in the province" and outside the US "the bishop of X is also the nominal head of the province" (the ECUSA provinces don't even have that). Most likely the Australian situation is the same. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Province of Western Australia to match the main article, Province of Western Australia. (If that option doesn't win, this nomination's suggestion is an improvement over the current long winded category.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname preferably to Category:Anglican Province of Perth to match Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Perth, which should be Category:Roman Catholic Province of Perth. The WP category system should match the hierarchy of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 30 August 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_August_29&oldid=1074283634"