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.
Nominator's rationale: Too specific to ever be populated —swpbT 16:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I created all of catagories. Khulna division is a province in Bangladesh and home to nearly 16 million people. I am sure we could find organizations there which are notable. Motijheel is the Business district of Bangladesh's Capital and home to many major organizations. Pabna is a district capital but I am not sure if this will be filled. Savar is a major sub-districted neighbouring the Capital Dhaka. I planned to fill all of them but was on a short wiki break. I am filling them, the nominations are too broad and done without proper research. I hate to say it but it seems to be a case of systematic bias.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The first two are already adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (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.
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 Category:Gardiner's sign list and purge of non-list entries. This is an alternative to deletion that received some support, which also solves the overlap issue that was raised by others. --Tavix(talk) 15:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More natural word order, but this was opposed as speedy. Brandmeistertalk 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Brandmeister: do we need "Gardiner-listed" at all? How many Egyptian hieroglyphs aren't Gardiner-listed? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The same question was raised at speedy nomination, so I wouldn't mind if it gets deleted. Brandmeistertalk 09:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs by category I'm counting some 220 hieroglyphs articles, while the nominated category has some 160. That is a big overlap so I'd be inclined to support deleting the nominated category. In that case the Palermo subcat needs to be reparented. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this category is completely redundant. The Gardiner list aimed at listing all hieroglyphs. While it does not include glyphs of the Ptolemaic period, all hieroglyphs that are going to merit Wikipedia pages are going to be from Gardiner's list. Please delete. Similarly, all categories in Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs by category should be deleted, and most articles on individual (unnotable) hieroglyphs as well. It is not in the scope of the project to have a full page per grapheme, people wishing to describe each hieroglyph individually should do this on Wikitionary (where hieroglyphs are to be listed under their Unicode character, as in wikt:𓀀). --dab(𒁳) 15:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I note that this entire tangled mess appears to be due to User:Mmcannis, a long-time editor who is enthusiastic, but unfortunately also completely innocent of any expertise in the topics he likes to contribute to, and who I seem to remember has caused unnecessary headache over the years. It would be very useful if a dedicated admin would take the time to clean this up. --dab(𒁳) 15:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbachmann: If you think many articles aren't appropriate you should nominate them at WP:AFD. An administrator can't just delete articles on his own. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2016 (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.
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 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:Palermo Stone hieroglyphs 24th 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "24th century BC" is apparently redundant here, as this is about hieroglyphs from Palermo Stone (was opposed as speedy, however). Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Obvious. Can we have Palermo Stone as the main article for this, not a mere member? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (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.
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.
Delete: I was planning on taking this to CfD once the outcome of my AfD for Alejandro Palacio was decided. Both the article and the category were created by the same SPA and without prejudice to boomerang throwers, I don't feel there is enough reliable information available to warrant either of them on Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (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.
1716 establishments in Texas and related categories[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:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 22:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational This system of 5 categories exists to hold only 2 articles. One in the Texas category and the other in the Philippines category. Even after these mergers Category:1716 establishments in the Spanish Empire will only have 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why has one year been picked when there are earlier entires in the series? For example the Philippines goes back to 1508, and the Texas series goes back to 1690. Tim! (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this procedural oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I picked one year is that the number of categories involved is huge. It is also not clear that in all cases upmerge is as neccesary. This is a particularly egregious case. It did not seem worth spending the energy on reccomending a whole series of changes without a sense of where the community whanted such to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw I think a mass nomination of all possible categories instead of just a few is in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2016 (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.
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. --Tavix(talk) 15:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:selectively merge per WP:NONDEF, the term "human sciences" does not define the studies of this category. "Interdisciplinary" does define the studies, hence a selective merge is suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I do not like the term, but the subject is not just sociology. It is trying to be a parent to social sciences and humanities. Economics is a social science, but it is not sociology. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Target has been revised to accommodate with this comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main article Human science says the topic is also known as humanistic social science, moral science and human sciences, so there may be scope to keep this category. – FayenaticLondon 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is based on the content of the category, for which this term isn't defining. I'm happily willing to accept that the article is notable though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2016 (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:People educated at City of Bath Boys' School[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.
Keep – a neater solution is to make the former a subcat of the latter, which I have done. Otherwise it is difficult to see the connection between the article and the category. Eg Roger Bannister does not (and should not) mention Beechen Cliff. (It was not merely a change of name: City of Bath Boys' School, a grammar school, amalgamated with Oldfield Boys' School to form Beechen Cliff, a comprehensive.) Oculi (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Oculi. Schools amalgamation not renamed - I strongly suspect that in law Beechen Cliff was a new school. Rwendland (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my understanding is, as the above editors have already stated, that the school did not merely change its name: Beechen Cliff School is an entirely new institution resulting from the abolition of a grammar and secondary modern school in Bath, namely City of Bath Boys' School, and Oldfield Boys' School, in 1970. Beechen Cliff School is neither of those schools, but an entirely new institution. It was established by the Local Education Authority as a result of an Act of Parliament, and is organisationally different from either of the former schools, including differentiation in such factors as admissions criteria and educational philosophies. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2016 (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:Christian concepts related to personal development[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.
Nominator's rationale:rename as an attempt to more clearly define the scope of this category, per article Spiritual formation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That alternative is obviously better (more concise) than the current name. But it doesn't solve the vague scope of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2016 (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.
1715 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a test nomination which I would probably have put off indefinetely if another editor had not began mass creating these 1 and 2 entry categories. The term "13 Colonies" is problematic on multiple fronts. The Province of Georgia was not formed until 1732, so it is not until that year that there are 13 of them. Beyond this, the division between them and other places, especially Newfoundland, is a result of events that transpired in the 1770s, and to so divide them imposes post-1770 political reality on the pre-1770 world. However British North America is in some ways a more problematic term, since it was not really used until the 1780s. Considering the actual size of these categories I think it is obvious that A-there is no need to subdivide below the level of the 13 colonies at lowest. 2-Thirteen Colonies is at best anachronistic, it might be best with the level of articles to just merge up to the general empire wide establishment category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partially support/partially neutral. Definite support for merging the 1715 state categories per WP:SMALLCAT, however I would encourage to also merge them to state decade categories which currently do not exist. Neutral between the names of the Thirteen Colonies and British North America. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually categories like Category:1710s establishments in Pennsylvania do exist. I would argue correctly these are colony/province categories, but that is not relevant to the discussion. That category has 34 articles under it at present, all in subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is at Thirteen Colonies covering the period 1607-1776. Merging with British Empire categories is not a great idea, as then will not be a subcategory of North America establishments tree. Tim! (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request to withdraw I sense that merging 13 colonies anywhere lacks support, and that discussion has caused people to avoid focusing on the important one, which is should we have the by specific colony categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition I have managed to built the Pennsylvania category to 5 and the Massachusetts category to 6 articles. This makes the categories less clearly unneeded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However many other years in that same period contain only one or two articles, so I think WP:SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1719 establishments in Pennsylvania is up to 8 articles. This would probably be best off being discussed in a context of a nomination for the whole decade. I have to admit I am split on it, but think that a new nomination that does not include consideration of changing the 13 Colonies category is the best course.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep: Many state categories by year post-1776 have only one or two articles per year, particularly subcategories by state of Category:Elections in the United States by state and year, Such as most election years for Connecticut up to the 1980s, see Category: Connecticut elections by year or similarly Category:New Hampshire elections by year . Generally a House of Representatives election and sometimes a Presidential election in a year; only large states like California or New York have many articles on state or mayoral elections as well as Federal elections. Hugo999 (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT. This was created at a time when there were three articles in it, but two were deleted at AFD for being based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage locatable. It can always be recreated if and when the number of entries justifies it again, but it's not needed for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge no reason to have as a single article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. No need for such redundant categorization. Brandmeistertalk 15:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FAirly full upmerge -- Though I am not sure if the LGBT rights parent needs this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2016 (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.
