Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 17

< April 16	April 18 >

April 17

22nd century BC

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]

Propose delete Category:2180s BC
Propose delete Category:2180s BC deaths
Propose delete Category:2184 BC
Propose delete Category:22nd-century BC deaths

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]

Keep Category:22nd-century BC deaths as part of a series. 22nd century BC shows the deaths of at least two Pharoahs. I suspect that Category:2184 BC is empty because the date is only c.2184, but it should certainly have been in the century parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Category:22nd-century BC deaths, per Peterkingiron's recommendation. A century category is useful, at the very least. Whoever emptied the other categories outside of the CfD process pre-epted this discussion and there must surely be several articles that can be added to the century category. Sionk (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the two pharaos in Category:22nd-century BC deaths so in this situation Category:22nd-century BC deaths should no longer be deleted while the other three categories can still be deleted. It seems like we have consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 22 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

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]

Propose merge Category:2271 BC to Category:23rd century BC
Propose merge Category:2278 BC deaths to Category:23rd-century BC deaths
Propose merge Category:2283 BC deaths to Category:23rd-century BC deaths
Propose delete Category:2270s BC
Propose delete Category:2280s BC
Propose delete Category:2270s BC deaths
Propose delete Category:2280s BC deaths
Propose delete Category:2278 BC
Propose delete Category:2283 BC

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]

Support -- This is an appropriate solution. How far back we need century-deaths categories ought to be a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 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.

Category:History of modern Hungary

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]

Propose delete Category:History of modern Hungary

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]

Merge back to Category:20th century in Hungary (or at least make sure that they are all in that tree). I suspect that Category:History of Hungary will be a sufficient parent to them all, without a medieval/modern split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked that they are all in 20th century in Hungary already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 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

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]

Propose merge Category:15th-century BC births to Category:15th-century BC people
Propose merge Category:16th-century BC births to Category:16th-century BC people
Propose merge Category:19th-century BC births to Category:19th-century BC people
Propose merge Category:20th-century BC births to Category:20th-century BC people
Propose merge Category:21st-century BC births to Category:21st-century BC people
Propose merge Category:23rd-century BC births to Category:23rd-century BC people
Propose merge Category:24th-century BC births to Category:24th-century BC people
Propose upmerge Category:3rd-millennium BC births to Category:3rd-millennium BC people

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]

Prune Category:3rd-millennium BC births, making it a container category; we should simply remove from it any articles that are in any more specific category within Category:3rd-millennium BC people, and only then move any remaining pages up into Category:3rd-millennium BC people. Keep the others; where birth dates are approximately known, and especially if they fell in a different century from death, it may be of some small navigational value to categorise by century of birth. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is the very least what needs to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A large portion of people born in any given century will only be notable in the following.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 17 May 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.