Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 23#Roman fortifications

: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: split :Category:Roman Limes and rename the other 4 categories. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Roman Limes to :Category:Roman limes

:* Propose renaming :Category:Roman Auxiliary Forts to :Category:Roman auxiliary forts

:* Propose renaming :Category:Roman Citadels to :Category:Roman citadels

:* Propose renaming :Category:Roman Vexillation forts to :Category:Roman vexillation forts

:* Propose renaming :Category:Roman Citadels in Italy to :Category:Roman citadels in Italy

:Nominator's rationale: No need for capitalisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- This is correct capitalisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speedly Per WP:C2A and WP:CATNAME. These aren't formal nouns and shouldn't be capitalized. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support No reason for capitalization here. None of these represents a formal name. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Split :Category:Roman Limes to :Category:Roman frontiers and :Category:Roman fortifications (or relevant sub-cats) as appropriate in each case. There is no justification for categorising by a foreign word with an ambiguous scope. Having a category for all things that were named a limes is explicitly against our guideline about over-categorisation, see WP:SHAREDNAME. If not split, then rename to plural :Category:Roman limites (as limes is a Latin singular noun). See previous discussions of this category and its former sub-cats at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_18#Roman_līmitēs_by_country and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_4#Category:Roman_Limes, where my suggestion was approved but was then considered moot. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Rename the others per nom. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

:Query shouldn't Roman Limes be renamed anyway, even if it's only retained as a re-direct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

:* Agree with that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

::* No, it should be retained as a {{tl|category disambiguation}} page, not a redirect. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support split limes + rename the others per Fayenatic london and per nom, respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (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: speedy merge. We only use "sports" for United States and related territories. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Sports in Bahrain by sport to :Category:Sport in Bahrain by sport, it is the same. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Merge - into :Category:Sport in Bahrain by sport. Parent is :Category:Sport in Bahrain. Oculi (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy merge per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Foreign influence in national elections to :Category:Foreign electoral intervention

:Nominator's rationale: Categories essentially address the same subject matter. — JFG ^talk 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::support. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Merge (or Reverse Merge) Clearly one category. Without a main article, no opinion on which name should prevail. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

::The main article is Foreign electoral intervention; categories should be merged to this name. — JFG ^talk 21:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

::: My mistake, then Merge as nominated. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The merge is complete, there are no pages left in the category. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

:*@SashiRolls in the big pink box at :Category:Foreign influence in national elections, it says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".

::So why did you empty that category before the discussion was closed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

:::@BrownHairedGirl Because I didn't see that in the big pink box (I saw: "This does not mean that any of the pages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized." and apparently misunderstood that "may" was being used in an epistemic sense (probability) rather than in its radical meaning (authorization) ^^). I saw this consensus to merge the category I created some years back and which has become redundant. Thought I'd save others some work. Apologies. I've made a mistake. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

::::Thanks, @SashiRolls.

::::It's not a big deal in this case, but sometimes it can be. The key thing to remember is that consensus is weighed by an uninvolved closer, not by any of the participants. If the closer finds a consensus to merge, the work is done by bots. So need for human intervention. OTOH, if the closer doesn't find a consensus to merge or delete, then the status quo cannot be retained if someone has jumped the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 3 March 2019 (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:1802 in the French First Republic to :Category:1802 in France and delete the other 5. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

: Propose merging

:*:Category:1802 in the French First Republic to :Category:1802 in France

: Propose deleting

:* :Category:1800s in the French First Republic

:* :Category:Decades in the French First Republic

:* :Category:Years of the 19th century in the French First Republic

:* :Category:19th century in the French First Republic

:* :Category:Centuries in the French First Republic

:Nominator's rationale: pointless duplication. The scope of any category by period in the 1792–1804 French First Republic is identical to that of the same period in France.

:The whole set currently contains only one article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, other year categories of the French First Republic have already been merged after this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support -- The First Republic included the former Austrian Netherlands, conquered after the French Revolution, but we should regard that as an expansion of "France", not as the creation of a separate polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2019 (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/Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1570s in Macau to :Category:1570s in China and :Category:1570s in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:16th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1576 in Macau to :Category:1576 in China and :Category:1576 in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:16th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1620s in Macau to :Category:1620s in China and :Category:1620s in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:17th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1622 in Macau to :Category:1622 in China and :Category:1622 in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:17th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1840 in Macau to :Category:1840 in China and :Category:1840 in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:19th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1840s in Macau to :Category:1840s in China and :Category:1840s in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:19th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1860s in Macau to :Category:1860s in China and :Category:1860s in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:19th century in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1488 establishments in Macau to :Category:1488 establishments in Asia and :Category:15th-century establishments in China

:* Propose merging :Category:1557 establishments in Macau to :Category:1557 establishments in China and :Category:1557 establishments in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:16th-century establishments in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1560 establishments in Macau to :Category:1560 establishments in China and :Category:1560 establishments in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:16th-century establishments in Macau

:* Propose merging :Category:1569 establishments in Macau to :Category:1569 establishments in China and :Category:1569 establishments in the Portuguese Empire and :Category:16th-century establishments in Macau

:Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, we do not diffuse city histories by year unless there is sufficient content. In this case with only 1 or at most 2 articles per category that is not needed. Note that this nomination only goes until the year 1885, because afterwards Macau no longer belonged to China. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• (see new !vote below) Oppose. My brief reading of the History of Macau suggests that it is misleading to dismiss pre-1885 Macau as simply a "city". It did not formally become a colony until the 1880s, but in the previous centuries it had many of the characteristics of a colony, esp economic dominance by Portugal. There was a Governor of Macau from 1623, which indicates that it was viewed by Portugal as more than simply a city.

:The nominator's proposal to merge even the 16th century categories to Portuguese Empire categories seems to me to acknowledge this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::PS Another factor is that the triple merge targets indicate that removing these categories will create a maintenance nightmare. It's unlikely that any but the most experienced categorising editors will correctly categorise any new pages in all three categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::: Obviously I acknowledge that Macau was not "simply" a city, it was an autonomous city but still a city in China. With respect to categorizing new pages, please note that existing pages are sometimes in a dozen categories, how can an editor categorize a new article in the same dozen categories, other than by plain copying from an existing similar article? This is a general problem that we are not going to solve in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::::@Marcocapelle, that's true up to a point, but the underlying issue is that longer the list of required categories the less likely it is to be completely implemented. (This is a consequence of the crude MediaWiki software, which should handle all these intersections automatically. A lot of categorisation is just workarounds to that underlying crudeness)

::::In the case of chronology categories, I don't think that SMALLCAT is much an issue, because there is now v good navigation between categories. So there's little reader benefit to merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::::* Navigation is only easy if the category for the last year of the previous decade exists and if the category for the first year of the next decade exists, otherwise there is a grey link. In this case many decades do not even miss a first and last year but, even worse, many decades do not have any articles/subcategories at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::* @Marcocapelle: That was the case with some badly-designed templates which set the range as a decade, rather than as current year +/- 5. That is now fixed in my update of {{tl|Year in country category}}, which I am rolling out and have deployed e.g. on {{cl|1885 in Macau}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::* That is definitely an improvement, thanks for that! But still it doesn't solve the situation when entire decades are blank like in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::* @Marcocapelle, Take a look again. {{smiley}}

::::::::I have decade nav below the navseasoncats box for year nav, so there's an easy drop-down/jump-ahead to 3 decades in each direction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

::::::::* Appreciate your efforts, but it is not intuitive to jump from one year to another decade, and it is still a lot clumsier than just having all articles in one category. Besides before the 19th century there are also gaps of more than three decades, this tree is just so sparsely populated that anything else than combining them in a century category does not make a whole lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::@Marcocapelle: OK, I will strike my oppose, but only on SMALLCAT grounds. Not on the grounds that it was a city colony; Hong Kong had similar status, and its by-year cats work fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support all City...colony... does it really matter? The contents are small. They should go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl Tim! (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support all -- China required foreign merchants to withdraw from Canton seasonally. The Portuguese did this by retiring to Macau. This made Macau a small polity, ruled by Portugal, but at times dependent on China and at other times not. How far the walled village is worth distinguishing from the adjacent rural area is debatable. This is one of many cases where a few articles on single events (categorised to a year) are supporting a whole tree of categories, with little overall content. The practice for some time has been to upmerge these, which is what this nom is doing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• (changing my !vote) Support, but only per WP:SMALLCAT, after discussion above. This was not just a city; it was a city colony, and the other main example is Hong Kong, which we do categorise by year: see :Category:Years in Hong Kong. However, this one is just too thin to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 3 March 2019 (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: has been deleted by User:Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Deceased}}

:Nominator's rationale: "Category:Deceased", which seems to be intended for articles about people who are dead, is a good example of a good-faith but completely pointless category. The category violates the existing structure of articles about deceased people, as explained at the long-established category Category:Dead people, "This is a hold-all category for deceased people. Please do not add individual people to this category; instead add them to the appropriate year of death category. If the year is unspecified add to Category:Year of death missing; if the date is lost to history, add to Category:Year of death unknown." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Cinefan Cinefan: Hello, sorry I hadn't realized that it was violating the guidelines but anyways I thought it'd be nicer to have an entire category for dead people rather than just people's deaths per year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefan Cinefan (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

:Yes, as I said, your category was created in good faith. However, Wikipedia already has a well-developed system for categorizing deceased people and there is no need for a new category about this matter, which only confuses things. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Cinefan Cinefan:I understand that now that it confuses things since there's two categories, however I didn't notice the "Dead people" category when creating it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefan Cinefan (talk • contribs) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete too indiscriminate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Empty category could be speedied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Please close -- it seems already to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2019 (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:Anime directors. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Japanese anime directors to :Category:Anime directors

:Nominator's rationale: There's only one single anime director with an article who isn't Japanese. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support We should merge these two categories. Because anime means animation or cartoon made in Japan. So it makes no difference.
  Sincerely,
  Masum Reza^talk 09:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Anime is a conventional name for Japanese animation. Anyone directing "anime" films and television series is working in Japan. Whether he/she is Japanese or an expatriate living in the country seems irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Injustice (franchise) guest fighters}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. See also Category:Injustice characters which was deleted. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Injustice (franchise) fighters}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. There are many DC video games, all of which naturally feature many DC characters. See also Category:Injustice characters which was deleted. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2019 (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.