Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 5

March 5

Category:Art of the Passion

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 and merge (non-admin closure). User:Fayenatic london, please check the implementation of the closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article Passion of Jesus and category names such as Category:Crucifixion of Jesus in art‎. The parent Category:Passion (Christianity) is not needed, as the article Passion of Jesus can be manually linked to and from the category, and the rest of the contents are representations in various arts. (Its parent categories and interwiki links may need careful handling; I am willing to undertake this.) – Fayenatic London 21:49, 5 March 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.

Note from closer: after having closed the discussion above, a further discussion about these categories started (details see talk page) leading to a new consensus about undoing the downmerge of the parent category Category:Passion (Christianity) and instead renaming it, and in addition moving some of the content that was in the child category, insofar not about visual arts, to the recreated parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire

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/rename. – Fayenatic London 07:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:320s in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s in the Roman Empire
  • Propose renaming Category:320s establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:320s establishments in the Roman Empire
  • Propose merging Category:324 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 in the Roman Empire
  • Propose renaming Category:324 establishments in the Byzantine Empire to Category:324 establishments in the Roman Empire
  • Propose merging Category:325 in the Byzantine Empire to Category:325 in the Roman Empire
Nominator's rationale: Since Byzantine Empire was formed on May 330, any previous mention of it is anachronistic. GreyShark (dibra) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, they called themselves Roman Empire and assigning a starting date in hindsight is therefore a bit arbitrary. Alternative starting years are 337, 395 and 476. But anything before 330 is definitely incorrect. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 5 March 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:Iranian people of Albanian descent

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) 06:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. Hovhannes Karapetyan 13:45, 5 March 2017 (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:Climbing magazines

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 for now without prejudice to a later delete nomination in line with the discussion below (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name 'Mountaineering magazines' is more inclusive and better covers the content of the magazines included. Eleassar my talk 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ok, but I prefer a single comprehensive category to two smaller ones with very limited numbers of articles. --Eleassar my talk 20:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to create Category:Mountaineering magazines, (manually) recategorise the articles that should be in that category and then consider whether Category:Climbing magazines should be deleted (probably by a dual upmerge). DexDor (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would be ok for me. --Eleassar my talk 21:51, 7 March 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:Necessity

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. I've boldly moved the offending article instead. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to disambiguate, the content of this category doesn't match with the article Necessity that deals with the legal concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 5 March 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.

Medieval men

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. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:7th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:8th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:9th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:10th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:11th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:12th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:13th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:14th-century men‎
  • Propose deleting Category:15th-century men‎
Nominator's rationale: delete, these categories almost entirely overlap with the clergy by century tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:41, 5 March 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_March_5&oldid=1074282873"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 5, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.