Category:People of the Spanish Civil War by country[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. MER-C 10:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories that group subcategories of this type (BARian FOOers) are usually named "by nationality", not "by country". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 19 February 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 if this related to archeological studies carried out by Native Americans I could see it being kept but the current scope does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 17 February 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:delete the category link from the articles, but retain the page for now at this location as a list. I will transclude the list page under the "historical" template. – FayenaticLondon 08:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A self-reference category for articles, with no need for maintenance purposes; no objection to listifying as a subpage of Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Women. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category has been listed in so many places ! Ranging from wiki pages, on the English wikipedia, on the French wikipedia, on meta, on press releases, on social media platforms, to blogs and external websites. Deleting it would mean breaking many links in many places ! Whilst not "maintenance" in the traditional way, it would seriously mess with the contest management ! If this is needed, we can move the category to the talk page of the articles. But really... I would find terrible to see the category deleted ! Anthere (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the objection to having a category for a writing contest. If it was just for a few articles, fine. But it pulls together 71 articles. 71!! It is used as the binding factor on multiple platforms - both on Wiki and off. This is not being used for maintenance but as an important way of binding the entries to the contest. Further it is another way of people reading about the Africa women leaders, readers who have come to the project via the media attention gained by the Wiki Loves Women project. Please can you expand on your reasons ...? Isla Haddow (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the original category since it is in use now with a reasonable purpose. Do not delete this category unless a plan is AGREED on to fix all the broken/dead links deleting would create. user:FloNight 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? Deleting the category implies that the category will (automatically) be removed from all articles that are in the category, while it doesn't influence French wikipedia or anything else. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, see this link and in particular click on the link where it is written 71 nouvelles biographies en anglais,. This link goes to this category. If the category is deleted, the link will be broken. We can fix this on wiki pages. We can not fix it in a press release (for example).
Delete, categories are a wrong medium for this anyway, and currently the category no longer serves a purpose because the contest is finished and the winners are known. No objection against creating an article / list about this event - that can be categorized in Category:History of Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category DOES serve a purpose right now. It has been directly linked in dozen of places. I see no problem creating a list of articles created during the contest (I am currently doing that) and I am fine if the category is removed from all relevant articles. However, can we PLEASE redirect that category to the list of articles ? Either a soft or a hard redirect, but at least a redirect of some sort ? This contest was a mean to create new articles, but it was also a mean to raise the attention with regards to so many missing biographies in Wikipedia and a link to the category has been widely disseminated. If the category is purely deleted, then half of the goal of that contest just blows in the air. If that were to happen in one year from now, I would not bother much. If the deletion had been proposed a month ago, it would have not been an issue either. The fact it is proposed for deletion NOW is an issue to me and is likely to be an issue to all those who are concerned by the lack of african women presence on Wikipedia. So again... what is an issue to you ? Is that the fact the category is present in the body of the article ? (which I fully understand) Or is that also that the category exist at all ? I believe there is an understanding on Wikipedia that breaking links is bad because it creates a gap in access to information. If you agree that creating a gap is wrong, then please preserve a redirection to a place where those articles are listed. Anthere (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no defining characteristic nor a maintenance purpose then a category is not the right thing. I don't think it's possible to redirect from a category to an article but I'm not sure. Anyway, I hope that the closing admin knows a creative solution here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a list is needed then create a list - a list can be watchlisted, can cover multiple language wikis, can include articles not yet created (or deleted)... If a category really is needed ("This article is of interest to ...") then it should be categorizing talk pages (and preferably done using a template rather than category tags directly). Clutter like this should not be added to article pages (and experience suggests that initiatives like this rarely, if ever, delete the infrastructure they've created at the end of the initiative). DexDor(talk) 21:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have created [1] and linked it from the category. Is that ok ? Anthere (talk)
Move to Talk Pages If Kept Since the contest is done, I'm not sure these still serve a purpose but I'll defer to other editors. But this category should never have been on the main articles instead of the talk pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note - using AWB, it's fairly simple to move the category to the talk page. Make the list from the category, save the list. Remove the category from all the pages. Load the saved list, switch to talk pages (in the menu), and prepend the appropriate content (probably some tag). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fairly simple (for a AWB user), but it probably means creating a new template, editing the talk pages (watchlist noise) and adding clutter to the talk pages. Once an initiative like this is over, it is very unlikely to be of interest to visitors to the article's talk page; the list is quite enough. Tagging of talk pages by temporary initiatives should be discouraged as, over a long period, it could cause a lot of tags (and categories) on some talk pages - in addition to the (more permanent) wikiproject tags. DexDor(talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a single banner is an issue for a single page, which can be handled by a human, or a small group of humans, fiairly easily; adding it to the talk pages would be minor edits (the default for AWB), which a user can exclude from the watchlist; And yes, it is fairly simple with AWB (which all admins can use, and many do). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amend somehow -- This is certainly not a typical category. It has more the feel of a project category, which should be on talk pages. If there is a problem over inward links, a cat-redirect could be left here. My preference would be for it to be a talk-pages category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 5 March 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:Provincial and state governors by country[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.
At this step I would like to invite @Scanlan: to explain why they created the new Category:Provincial and state governors by country and which scope it has in regard to existing categories. If this is the path of the discussion, where everyone seems to like the "new" name, we could consider a reverse merge. Place Clichy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Parent to instead of merge to, otherwise with plain merging the target category would become too messy. It would be better to align the names of the two categories somehow, the nominated category only needs to differ by having "by country" in addition. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both -- The target is badly named: it is largely about colonial governors and would be better Category:Governors of non-sovereign polities: they cannot be head of state, a term that implies sovereignty. The distinction is that the subject is about internal divisions and the target for overseas territories and the like. The title varies from country to country, but that does not require a name change: it can be adequately dealt with in a head note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed rename. No opinion on whether we ought to move the current category away from its current name, but the proposed new name would restrict the scope by cutting out the US. Each US state is sovereign (not independent, but it's still considered to have sovereignty) under US constitutional law; I have no clue whether this is the case in other federations, but it would be worth checking into. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has the opposite problem; we don't want Gideon Gono showing up in Cat:Governors just because he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Of course, we could always add a text note saying basically "this is only for provincial, state, and comparable-jurisdiction governors, not governors of institutions of other types", and at worst we'd just have to prune the Gono-type contents every so often. As long as we have that text note, I'm fine with those names. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit cold about this one. What would you place in Governors that wouldn't be in Governors by country? Also, what would be done with people holding a similar job but with a title different than Governor, such as subcategories Presidents of Italian Regions, Spanish Regional Presidents, Heads of government of Australian states and territories? They would be left out. Provincial and state governors is not that bad after all, we could maybe add or presidentoror equivalent to cover other types of offices, and leave out unrelated jobs also called governor such as the governor of a fortress, which is I believe not of interest here. Place Clichy (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy, the "Governors" category would be occupied by governors from countries that don't have their own categories. "Governors by country" would be a container category, meant to hold nothing except national subcategories such as "Governors from Egypt", "Governors from the US", etc. Some countries won't have enough governor articles to warrant their own category, so the governors from those countries will get thrown into the general "Governors" category. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to use governors and heads of state, but use "sub-national" instead of "non-sovereign".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did mean merge and rename, I had missed the detail that the target category actually existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this alternative name. Aside from the sovereignty issue, I wouldn't have objected to the "non-sovereign entities" suggestion, and this resolves that issue. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean: rename, don't merge, but make one category a parent of the other? That would be fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: You mentioned a third category now, Heads of government of non-sovereign entities, that confused me. So we have (1) governors (or with a different name) of country subdivisions that we can collect in a "by country" category; (2) governors (or with a different name) of non-sovereign countries who locally represent the head of state; (3) heads of governments of non-sovereign countries, e.g. called prime minister. They are all three different and I think we should keep them as different categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 28 April 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:speedy rename, already done under C2E. – FayenaticLondon 21:17, 18 February 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.
