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: Many bird species have a wide distribution (e.g. see Eurasian jay or Eurasian coot) so being found in a particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species. There are (currently) only categories like this for a fraction of the countries in Europe (for example there is no "Birds of Spain" category) - if every country had such a category then some articles would be in dozens of these categories. Note: All of the categories listed above have a corresponding list article (in several cases it's the only page currently in the category). For info: An example of a previous related discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra.
Merge Fauna do not obey national borders so this categorisation is of limited use. A better sub-categorisation method would be to do so by distinct geographic area (e.g. Europe landmass, down into sub-types like Scandinavia, Iberian Peninsula, British Isles, etc.) SFB14:06, 10 August 2014 (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:Category:Ancient Iran, in contrast to what the category name suggests, contains mainly child categories of Iranian people by century and these can therefore easily be merged into the already existing Category:Iranian people by century. The few single articles have been classified in other History of Iran categories already, so the category Ancient Iran can simply be removed from them. The end result of it all is that Ancient Iran becomes empty and can be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose reverse merge with Category:Ancient Persia This an entirely valid category covering the Ancient period of Iran/Persia (pre-history to 7th century). The terms Iran and Persia are interchangeable historically, so this structure should be moved under the Ancient Iran heading. SFB14:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative proposal contains two deviations from the original proposal and unfortunately I disagree with both aspects:
It no longer recognizes that the category mainly contains childcats with people by century (plus just a random few single articles) - which was actually the main reason for the original proposal. If anything, it should rather be upmerged to Category:Persian people by century.
Delete in line with the proposal, but no longer needed category - various historical events are in the ancient Persia cat (properly so, IMHO), but these people by century ought to go in Category:Medieval Persian people, which covers people from the Persian Empire from the 6th through 15th centuries, the 16th century on folks go to Category:Iranian people by century. To do otherwise (as suggested by the response above noting the difference between the political entity vs. ethnicity), would require proof of the pure-blooded ethnicity of each individual, rather than his or her country, which with our modern notions of ethnicity being projected on to people who no doubt had very different senses of it and could well have mixed ethnicity even by today's standards. Let's keep it simple but correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the idea. However the category mostly contains centuries from before the Middle Ages and after Ancient Persia (which, confusingly enough, means something else than Ancient western history, in Iranian history it means up to Alexander the Great). So the content of this category should then be moved to Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire and Sasanian Empire respectively, or to Persian history at a higher level but then you would also have to move Medieval people to that the higher level. So this is all a bit tricky. Things would have been easier if Ancient Persia would run up to conquest by Islam (instead of up to Alexander the Great) and then be smoothly followed by Middle Ages, as in western history - but I doubt if we are allowed to project western history categorization onto non-western cultures. In short: the proposal for just upmerging is definitely an 'easier' solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2014 (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: Being found in coastal areas of the British Isles is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most/all of the animals with articles currently in this category (e.g. Mallard, Oyster, Lugworm, Pollock, Whooper swan, Arctic tern). Many of the articles make no mention of the British Isles. All the articles I've checked are in categories for genus etc. This could be listified, but given how few (if any) of these articles mention the British Isles any such list is likely to be mostly/completely unreferenced. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced articles easily be referenced from any book about British wildlife. The problem of uncited articles in a category should first be solved by adding citations, and then removing categories when no citations can be found. There's always the option of removing and adding ir/relevant articles as well. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after listifying - if necessary) as with other fauna by nation categories, few birds or animals are indigenous only to British Isles: they will also occur on the northern coasts of the continent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2014 (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:Music from The Hunger Games (film series)
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.
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.
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: Currently Iranian dynasties parents both to Muslim dynasties and to Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers. However, 95% of the category content is Muslim and 5% is Zoroastrian. It will be clearer to have this as an exclusive Muslim category and no longer to parent this to Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers. If the category is going to be renamed, Category:Dabuyid dynasty and Category:Pharnacid dynasty need to be moved to Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The nom is effectively to split out those that belong in Category:Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers. I can see some logic in that, but were all the pre-Islamic dynasties all Zoroastrian? The ultimately problem is that describing what is now Iran as if it were a country long before it was one gives rise to anachonistic difficulties. We have preferred to categorise things by the contemporary polity of their own period, rather than by the present one. In this case the Sassinid and Partian Empires, for example, had an extent similar to the presnt Iran. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant about Iran as a current country, but as a descent category referring to Iranian peoples. If it were about the current country, the category name should have been named Dynasties of Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it has been set up in Wikipedia by recognition that, in large parts of history, religion was a very defining characteristic of sets of countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JPL. We don't divvy up the various English dynasties based on religion which was a huge factor in the turmoil of the Tudors & Stuarts at least. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a POV issue. In Wikipedia we regard categorizing by country to be the default categorizing principle, after we had a history of some 350 years of nationalism as a dominant political philosophy. If we would have lived in the 17th century we would most obviously have classified kings and queens, dynasties and countries by religion. Having said that, in most current Muslim countries nationalism has a much shorter history and moreover most Muslim countries are a foreign invention created by colonialism. So I wouldn't find it strange if Muslims consider themselves to be Muslims in the first place and citizen of a state only in the second place; nor do I find it strange to find Muslim religion as an important categorizing principle in Wikipedia next to country. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the idea of "nationalism" (maybe some kind of proto-nationalism, whatever you like to call it) in Iran has existed since the Sasanian period, and unlike these many Muslim countries, Iran was not created by colonialism. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (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: Small category with only two articles about a father and son (not about the family), while the body text of the son's article immediately links to the father. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (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: Only one article, not about the Makula family but about one single person of the family. Not likely to be extended. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The importance of the Makula family is unclear and not verified. Delete as not requiring navigation at this point in time. SFB14:16, 10 August 2014 (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 No articles on the family members are present. Delete as not requiring navigation at this point in time. SFB14:17, 10 August 2014 (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.
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.
Oppose I would expect the former to contain biographical articles on monarchs, while the latter would contain links to information on the dynasties (but not on individuals). Some sorting is definitely required, but I see the structure as valid. To clarify, the true monarchs in the dynasties categories should be placed into the monarch category, then the dynasty removed. After completion the leading "Shi'a" should be speed moved to "Shia" for consistency. SFB14:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In theory you may be right. The problem here is that dynasties are both a content in their own right and also serve as a categorization layer to group the monarchs together (with their family members). I don't really know how to tackle that. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite straight forward. The content of the monarchs category should be the same the dynasties categories minus the various articles that are not monarch biographies. SFB19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now I understand, so you don't want to separate out the proposed monarchs category by dynasty. That makes sense. It basically means that the original proposal to upmerge can go ahead and one new category for all monarchs of all dynasties together can be created. Right? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2014 (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: Only one single article and a childcategory that is also a direct child in Durrani Empire. Not likely that more single articles will be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2014 (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.
Good question! To be honest, I've only looked at the childcategories and not at the individual articles. The childcategories are dynasties, while the individual articles are clans (also referred to as tribes). I'm not 100% sure but I would expect that, for the latter, the current co-categorization by Category:Social groups of Pakistan should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2014 (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 am unsure what purpose there is distinguishing a program title card from a logo (often a highly related or identical concept). SFB14:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as nominator) merging any title card categories into Category:Screenshots of television - Wikipedia already has enough category bloat as it is. Furthermore, conditionally oppose (as nominator) preemptively renaming any title card category due to the inclusion of non-television images in it until such time as a separate consensus regarding the inclusion of such images exists. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2014 (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: Not a valid category. Can only ever contain a single entry. Promotional creation to support a single article. VelellaVelella Talk 07:37, 8 August 2014 (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:Split. Following the cleanup of Category:Bugatti vehicles, we probably need to discuss the organization of this category. Most of these vehicles have nothing to do with VW. VM bought the brand for a company called Bugatti Automobiles S.A.S.. In fact the article says that only the brand was purchased! It is far from clear that the various vehicles really share more then a brand and the different companies vehicles should not be classified together. I'll acknowledge that if we change here, there could be other changes in the category structure. But the question needs to be asked someplace. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as this category is one purely designated as "automobile by brand", surely the issue of various manufacturers is not an issue at all? SFB19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the interests of a short, succinct, common name. Car makers change ownership all the time, but the master category does not get split up as a result. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugatti at this point represents a brand, so it may make sense to retain Category:Bugatti automobiles as a parent for the three new categories. I agree that succinct is a goal, but one which is not always achievable. As to the common name, yes, in categories we try and use it when the name is not ambiguous. Here we have cars built by three very different companies, so knowing which company built the vehicle is important. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what about a company like Chrysler? It has been moved around a bit recently. Jaguar and Land Rover? I just don't see the benefit as the cars are separate to the entities that own the marque. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chrysler has stayed in business and vehicles have been produced under the name the entire time. So the case there is different. There have been ownership changes but the cars are being produced by the same corporation or its successors. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2014 (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.
