Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17

[edit]

22nd century BC

[edit]
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 deaths to Category:22nd-century BC deaths, delete others. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Apparently someone else has already emptied these categories. As I would hope and presume that the original contents is still contained in Category:22nd-century BC people I see no harm in deleting these empty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (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.

23rd century BC

[edit]
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 per nom. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge the first three categories per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the three categories contains one article. After merging, all other categories become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2015 (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:History of modern Hungary

[edit]
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. No objection to a replacement container category as suggested below; per most others in Category:Modern history by country, this should be "Modern history of Hungary". – Fayenatic London 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. This category contains a seemingly random selection of articles from the tree of Category:20th century in Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After deletion, this category could be recreated as a container category for Category:16th century in Hungary to Category:21st century in Hungary, Category:Ottoman period in the history of Hungary and Category:Habsburg period in the history of Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2015 (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.

Ancient births

[edit]
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: kept. It initially seemed like the oppositions of Peterkingiron and Sionk were in part due to a misunderstanding but while everyone here supports centuries categorization, Peterkingiron, Sionk and John Pack Lambert all do indicate support for keeping a separate birth category, even if duplicative. No opinion on pruning as that's not an issue for CFD (splitting could be done as a separate discussion but it wasn't done here). Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. For the above ancient periods it's not possible or meaningful to categorize births more accurately than by century or by millennium, but this implies that the "births" categories will eventually contain the same biographies as the "people" categories of the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All It looks like most of these royal biographies (and they are mostly that) show the year their rule began and ended, the latter coinciding with their death. There are a few rulers from these periods with exact birth dates, like Hatshepsut, but they are the rare exception so it doesn't look like a good point of categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is going too far. Precise birth dates may be uncertain, but in many cases we will know approximately. I accept that they may duplicate the people tree, but I would prefer to see efforty being put innot eliminating miniscuole annual categories before we start thinking what century categories we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Peterkingiron's arguments. Though individual years (or decades) would be far too precise, century categories are a sensible way of grouping births in the BC period. Sionk (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to avoid a misunderstanding, the nomination does not suggest that century categories aren't a sensible of grouping births. The rationale is WP:OVERLAPCAT, as it seems pretty obvious that "people" century categories and "birth" century categories will ultimately largely overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2015 (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.