Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 23#Norway in the Middle Ages

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Users who experienced domestic violence as a husband}}

:Nominator's rationale: Limited use category that doesn't conform to standards ("Wikipedians who..."). Only in use by one editor who has created userboxes such as Template:Anti-feminist and Template:User who experienced domestic violence as a husband and deleted articles like Cruelty against Husband in India. Unlikely to have wide-spread adoption by other Wikipedians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename If Kept to :Category:Wikipedians who experienced domestic violence as a husband to match naming policy. No opinion on usefulness. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. By the way there aren't any other "Wikipedians who experienced ..." categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -- As currently structured it is not a category of users but of substantive articles. If kept it should be renamed accordingly, but the object of user categories is to facilitate cooperation, and I do not see how being a battered husband would do that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Such an experience can facilitate collaborative editing how? I presume that, by definition, amember of this category would be a non-neutral primary source. And also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Anti-feminist. The only member apparently doesn't oppose deletion of the userbox. - jc37 17:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete No purpose other than seemingly to advance creators political agenda. AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Hellenistic geographers}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see :Category:Ancient Greek geographers works like all kinds of :Category:Ancient Greek writers, that is, regardless of exact ancient political landscape or nationality. This :Category:Hellenistic geographers is a double. Note: I recategorized Marcian of Heraclea and Pseudo-Scymnus already. trespassers william (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• If anything, it should be upmerged rather than deleted. I can't judge if upmerging is appropriate per WP:SMALLCAT or not, it depends on further potential. Anyway please note that :Category:Hellenistic-era people is not just for ancient Greek people but also for Middle East people (Syrian, Egyptian) of the Hellenistic era. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Ancient Greek geographers. Hellenistic is a historic period, a subset of "ancient Greek". Both apply not only to Greece but to Greek colonies around the Mediterranean and beyond. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:* The question here is, is Hellenistic a subset of ancient Greek or not? I think it's not, Syrian and Egyptian people of that era may well be considered to be Hellenists while they would not be considered to be (ancient) Greeks. Btw it is not about Greek colonies but about Greek culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::*No, they are pretty much equivalent. Anyway at the WP tree, if you look at Ancient Greek cats, they cover various lands just like the Hellenistic.See the Hellenistic cat you linked: it is too within an Ancient Greek one: :Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia. It is clearly not a true subsection (think Alexandria,Syracuse), but a mindless shift of words. trespassers william (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* This is a bit confusing indeed, but :Category:Ancient Greeks in Asia is there (primarily) because of the ancient Greek colonies that Peterkingiron mentioned above. However, the era of colonization by the ancient Greek city-states (7th-5th century BC) was way earlier than the era of Hellenism (starting 3rd century BC) and the colonies in :Category:Hellenistic colonies in Anatolia are colonies established by the Seleucids, i.e. established by Syrians who embraced Greek culture, not by Greeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

::::*There may be a use to distinguish the periods in purely geopolitical cats, but regarding cltural products like geographical writing, modern sources are comfortable enough calling all of them, down to Byzantium, "ancient Greek-". See the bibs at Marcian of Heraclea. Not that I mind if it was the other way round, but this seems to be the situation in WP too, and in Peterkingiron's view, and it's a bad idea to stick to such a non-essential exception. trespassers william (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, at second sight I notice that the contents of the category is about Greco-Roman, while the Hellenistic period was only until the conquering by the Romans. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Medical colleges in Bikaner to :Category:Medical colleges in Rajasthan

:Nominator's rationale: A small category with no growth potential. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Medical colleges in New Delhi to :Category:Medical colleges in Delhi

:Nominator's rationale: To match with parent category :Category:Universities and colleges in Delhi. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2015 (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.

: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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Suburbs of Upper Hunter Shire to :Category:Localities of Upper Hunter Shire

:Nominator's rationale: Whatever else most of the places in this category are - they are certainly not suburbs - not in the ordinary dictionary definition and not in the general understanding of the word "suburb". I would prefer a pragmatic approach of calling them "towns" as they are described in ordinary Australian English but I am conscious that some here only like to apply the term "town" to a place gazetted as such. "Locality: is a reasonable compromise term Mattinbgn (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The category was named for consistency with other categories in the same tree (See {{cl|Suburbs of the Hunter Region}}) and with consideration for the principle of least astonishment. In Australia, particularly in New South Wales where these places are located, suburbs and localities have specific definitions. A locality is defined as being a bounded area within the landscape that has a "rural" character, while a suburb is defined as being a bounded area within the landscape that has an "urban" character. The only differences in the two definitions are the words "rural" and "urban". As a result, suburb and locality are used interchangeably in the Geographical Names Register, which is the official register of place names in NSW, and is maintained by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. There is no best name for this, or other similar categories, as the places that are members are variously registered as towns, suburbs, villages etc. {{NSWcity|Aberdeen}} for example, is registered as a locality, a rural place and a village. (the village is located within the locality of the same name). "Town" is definitely incorrect as none of these places are registered as towns. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses "suburb" extensively in its statistics set when referring to places in the Upper Hunter Shire.[http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC10005?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC10245?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC10390?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC10485?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC11521?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC11581?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC11662?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC11726?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC11842?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC12053?opendocument&navpos=220][http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/SSC12521?opendocument&navpos=220] Even LGAs in NSW refer to the subdivisions that make up their LGA as "suburbs" and renaming to use "locality" would introduce an unnecessary level of confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment (from a non-local). Some years ago, we had a long discussion over how we should categorise places, when the question was how to distinguish a town from a city or a village. The consensus (which I did not like at the time) was "Populated places". Unless there is a comprehensive and robust local scheme, I would suggest :Category:Populated places in Upper Hunter Shire. This avoids the debate as to the appropriate term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::"Populated places in " has not been a successful category structure. From {{cl|Populated places in Australia}} down there is little consistency in that tree. "Suburbs of " has a much wider use, even in non-cities. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:::"Populated places" is generally only used in top-level categories, to gather categories for cities, towns, villages, municipalities, suburbs, etc. for a given place. The subcategories then subdivide by type of place based on local usage. I don't think it was ever meant to be implemented all the way down the tree and replace words like cities, towns, etc. Thus, I don't think it would be appropriate usage in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

::::That would explain the current structure. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 6 November 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Medical colleges in Kota to :Category:Medical colleges in Rajasthan

:Nominator's rationale: A small category with no potential of growth for now. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

:Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 24 October 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Medical colleges in Ajmer to :Category:Medical colleges in Rajasthan

:Nominator's rationale: A small category with no potential of growth for now. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

:Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 24 October 2015 (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.

: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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Indian skeptics to :Category:Indian sceptics

:Nominator's rationale: WP:STRONGNAT Indian English uses "sceptics". AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Previous "no consensus" discussion was here; I disagree with the methods users used in that discussion to argue that "skeptics" was actually more commonly used in India. It's easier (and probably more reliable to boot) to just use the form of English dominant in the country in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 24 October 2015 (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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose disperse :Category:Natural history of Alabama to :Category:Environment of Alabama and :Category:Geology of Alabama

:Nominator's rationale: disperse per WP:NONDEF, natural history is not a defining characteristic of any of the content that is in this category. In order to keep the content within the Alabama tree, Geology of Alabama and the paleontology article and category should go to :Category:Geology of Alabama, the remainder upmerged to :Category:Environment of Alabama. Note: this is a follow-up nomination on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Natural history. They teach courses on natural history. There are museums of natural history. And to be even more clear, this topic is very easily researchable in references. And per the previous discussion - we do not determine if something is "defining" by our own subjective analysis. And this easily passes the: "Could an article be written about the topic?" test. - jc37 21:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• : That's the test for notability, but not the test for definingness. The latter is: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• :: You do understand you just defined "defining" as being "defining"? : )
• ::Our definition of being "defining" has always been somewhat subjective in application. It's why we lean more on the other criteria, and typically use WP:OC as our set of consensus-created benchmarks for "defining". The whole point of "defining" was to prevent categorising what someone had for lunch today. Both to avoid category "bloat" on articles and because the category system is a finite system. I am positive the topic of Natural history is defining to a region (such as the state of Alabama). And that's because it's easily provable by the means I mentioned. references, museums, etc. At the end of the day, we report on what others say, not what we aver or believe. - jc37 23:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::: The latter is definitely right, and I haven't seen any reliable sources saying that Fauna, Flora or Paleontology are defined by Natural history, so it's not a defining characteristic. Fauna is defined by "animals", Animal is defined by Zoology, zoology is defined by Biology, biology is defined by Natural science, natural science is defined by Science. Nowhere comes Natural history into play. I'm not making this up, am just checking the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::: Side note: Obviously I wouldn't say that "Natural history" isn't a defining characteristic of "Natural history museums". However there is no child category :Category:Natural history museums in Alabama so that's not relevant here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::: In fact there is a :Category:Natural history museums in Alabama, I see now that it's bluelinked, but it's not even parented to :Category:Natural history of Alabama. This is highly confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

::::* (edit conflict) If you are reading articles, then did you read Natural history and how it is different than scientific experimentation? And do you understand the difference between a natural historian and a scientist? your "tree of defining-ness" suggests that you haven't, or at least haven't understood the topic. If it helps, a nice place to start might be this book. - jc37 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::* In fact I just disagree that the discussion is about the meaning of natural history. The discussion is rather about the implementation of WP:NONDEF. Let's just see what other editors think about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• keep Part of a series for the United States and for countries of the world. No valid reason provided why this should be deleted and make navigation by readers to these related subcats and articles more difficult. :Natural history, as such, may no longer be a popular field for academic study, but that does not change the fact of its existence. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2015 (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.

: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 as discussed, which will require manual checking. :User:Marcocapelle, since you have nominated to do the checking/merging, just ping me once you've completed the work, and I can arrange to have the nominated categories deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1303 disasters to :Category:1303

:* Propose merging :Category:1304 disasters to :Category:1304

:* Propose merging :Category:1342 disasters to :Category:1342

:* Propose merging :Category:1343 disasters to :Category:1343

{{cot|rest of 14th-16th century disasters}}

:* Propose merging :Category:1344 disasters to :Category:1344

:* Propose merging :Category:1348 disasters to :Category:1348

:* Propose merging :Category:1356 disasters to :Category:1356

:* Propose merging :Category:1362 disasters to :Category:1362

:* Propose merging :Category:1375 disasters to :Category:1375

:* Propose merging :Category:1384 disasters to :Category:1384

:* Propose merging :Category:1390 disasters to :Category:1390

:* Propose merging :Category:1391 disasters to :Category:1391

:* Propose merging :Category:1404 disasters to :Category:1404

:* Propose merging :Category:1410 disasters to :Category:1410

:* Propose merging :Category:1416 disasters to :Category:1416

:* Propose merging :Category:1421 disasters to :Category:1421

:* Propose merging :Category:1428 disasters to :Category:1428

:* Propose merging :Category:1436 disasters to :Category:1436

:* Propose merging :Category:1441 disasters to :Category:1441

:* Propose merging :Category:1448 disasters to :Category:1448

:* Propose merging :Category:1452 disasters to :Category:1452

:* Propose merging :Category:1453 disasters to :Category:1453

:* Propose merging :Category:1481 disasters to :Category:1481

:* Propose merging :Category:1494 disasters to :Category:1494

:* Propose merging :Category:1509 disasters to :Category:1509

:* Propose merging :Category:1530 disasters to :Category:1530

:* Propose merging :Category:1531 disasters to :Category:1531

:* Propose merging :Category:1547 disasters to :Category:1547

:* Propose merging :Category:1551 disasters to :Category:1551

:* Propose merging :Category:1556 disasters to :Category:1556

:* Propose merging :Category:1570 disasters to :Category:1570

:* Propose merging :Category:1571 disasters to :Category:1571

:* Propose merging :Category:1575 disasters to :Category:1575

:* Propose merging :Category:1580 disasters to :Category:1580

:* Propose merging :Category:1590 disasters to :Category:1590

:* Propose merging :Category:1595 disasters to :Category:1595

{{cob}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Maritime incidents in 1527 to :Category:16th-century maritime incidents and perhaps to :Category:1527

:* Propose merging :Category:Maritime incidents in 1545 to :Category:16th-century maritime incidents and perhaps to :Category:1545

:* Propose deleting :Category:Transport disasters in 1545 (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose deleting :Category:1545 disasters (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

{{cot|rest of 16th century maritime incidents}}

:* Propose merging :Category:Maritime incidents in 1564 to :Category:16th-century maritime incidents and perhaps to :Category:1564

:* Propose deleting :Category:Transport disasters in 1564 (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose deleting :Category:1564 disasters (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose merging :Category:Maritime incidents in 1588 to :Category:16th-century maritime incidents and perhaps to :Category:1588

:* Propose deleting :Category:Transport disasters in 1588 (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose deleting :Category:1588 disasters (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose merging :Category:Maritime incidents in 1591 to :Category:16th-century maritime incidents and perhaps to :Category:1591

:* Propose deleting :Category:Transport disasters in 1591 (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

:* Propose deleting :Category:1591 disasters (becomes empty after beforementioned merge)

{{cob}}

: Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one (or occasionally two) articles per category, too few disasters in these centuries to justify separate year categories. There is no double merge needed e.g. to :Category:14th-century natural disasters because the individual articles are already in a 14th century floods, earthquakes or fires subcategory of the 14th century disasters category.

: This nomination includes a few 16th-century maritime incidents, as part of the disasters tree, (see bottom of list) for which a double merge may be needed; on the other hand it is questionable if these categories should be merged to year categories (since the articles contain ships, not disasters). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Merge/delete as nominated. For what it's worth, though, since you've done so much work with this tree already, couldn't you just cite precedent rather than having to type all of that out for each nomination chunk? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 08:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Thanks for the tip :-) see this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle but we need to ensure that all the articles are in a XXth-century category, which I have not checked; if not a double-merge is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:* I have checked every article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support in principle but merge to continent (or country if avaliable ) category eg to "1342 in Europe" etc, not to "1342". Hugo999 (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Good point. Hopefully the articles are already in those country categories so we can just delete instead of merge the nominated categories, but I didn't check this. So this will require a manual merge, for which I'm happy to volunteer if needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2015 (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.

: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 to :Category:Medieval Norway. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Norwegian late-medieval history to :Category:Norway in the Late Middle Ages

:* Propose renaming :Category:Norwegian High-medieval History to :Category:Norway in the High Middle Ages

:Nominator's rationale: I think that these categories are a bit awkwardly named, and that the proposed names are more consistent with other naming patterns, both within the Norway tree and the Middle Ages tree. We have :Category:History of Norway, not :Category:Norwegian history (a redirect), and other categories with similar formats are :Category:Norway in World War I, :Category:Scotland in the Late Middle Ages‎, :Category:Holy Roman Empire in the High Middle Ages, :Category:Scotland in the High Middle Ages‎, etc. (Note that these same proposals were part of an unsuccessful group nomination here, but the discussion seemed to focus more on the overall differences between the variety of category formats rather than these Norwegian categories in particular.) If there is no consensus to rename, we could at least fix the capitalization on the second category listed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, why not? Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - If High is 1000ish-1300 and Late is 1300-1600ish, then these cats need cleanup or something, because their contents do not well reflect this. And how does :Category:Viking Age fit into this? Per the category intro: include articles covering events beginning with the introduction of Christianity to Norway (essentially 1015, the beginning of the reign of Olaf II of Norway) and ends with the introduction of Protestantism (essentially 1537)., I think in this case, both should be merged to :Category:Medieval Norway per :Category:Middle Ages by country. - jc37 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Presumably :Category:Viking Age is the Early Middle Ages category for the Scandinavian countries together. Just to understand correctly, why do you prefer merging Norway but keeping Holy Roman Empire (see this discussion), what's the difference? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• :: Not every country is as easy to divide their history by arbitrary sub-historical lines. And the intro to one of these cats (and the members of the cats) suggests that it would probably be better to not to in this case. If you have any historical references suggesting otherwise, I'm all ears : )
• :: And, I didn't say keep at the other discussion. I'll happily clarify my comments there if you would like. - jc37 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::: The issue with this type of categories that they are never fitting a single country, but it's the only way to group countries together under a common theme. This applies to the entire Middle Ages no less than to just the Late Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::::I don't disagree. Hence why these need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Though I note that :Category:Middle Ages by country has a far greater number of country subcats than do either :Category:High Middle Ages or :Category:Late Middle Ages. Maybe we should be discussing merging the Scotland ones as well? - jc37 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::::I would have no objection to merging both to :Category:Medieval Norway. Upon closer inspection, I do find the distinction here unnecessary as the two nominated categories and :Category:Medieval Norway are all lightly populated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::::: I agree to the merge too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::::::Thanks for turning the red link into - :Category:Medieval Norway - a bluelink : )- jc37 07:25, 25 October 2015 (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.

: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 :Category:Dance instructors to :Category:Dance teachers (technically done via a rename per comments below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Dance teachers to :Category:Dance instructors

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Merger or Reverse Merge Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. No preference on target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Reverse merge -- I think "teachers" is better or am I being anglo-centric? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Reverse merge I agree based on the names of the accreditation organizations. They all seem to prefer teacher over instructor. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment reverse merge is fine with me too, although :Category:Dance instructors is much older and contains many more articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• :Nod, when done, the page :Category:Dance teachers should be deleted, and the page :Category:Dance instructors moved to :Category:Dance teachers. in order to retain edit history. And the talk page moved as well, of course. - jc37 00:25, 25 October 2015 (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.