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/merge and list as agreed below. Although these category names do not match the main articles e.g. 11th century in poetry, they do match the parent hierarchy for literature, e.g. Category:11th-century literature, so I see no reason to delay or alter the implementation from the names given below. – FayenaticLondon 20:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming or merging: To rename or merge the following categories with articles on poetry by year, as the category title refers to decades but the actual content is for a century. This will also link the categories into literature for the appropriate century (for which there is no link at present; except for the 20th century category). A few "orphan" categories will also be upmerged to the century category, as there are only one or two of these categories for the 11th, 14th and 15th centuries. Hugo999 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename as necessary. 1000s should refer to a decade. These are parenting annual categories, so that there are 100 potential members, which is manageable: we thus do not need decade categories. Since we have annual poetry categories the poems should also be added (if necessary) to 1077 in poetry article and upmerged to Category:1077 works. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename poetry categories per nom; dual merge poems categories per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename The current titles suggest this is a category by decade. Dimadick (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment support dual upmerge as proposed above Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 soft delete. Although there has been no participation other than the nominator's, the discussion is included in relevant WikiProject alerts, and the category creators were notified and are still active; therefore it appears that there is no reason to oppose the nomination, or delay implementation. – FayenaticLondon 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, sub-ethnic categories are only used when there is a parent category about an ethnicity, not (like here) as part of a country tree, see Category:Sub-ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Conditional support if the sibling categories are renamed as well. It looks like the categorization guideline is lagging behind here, since the articles of most countries are named "Culture of". Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. A double upmerge (also to year categories) is undesirable because these categories mainly contain biographies (murder victims and occasionally murderers) who do not belong in a year category directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Too small categories. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly merge However, I would question how many of these ought to be directly in a crimes category, since most are "murders", largely political assassinations. Indeed most would be better in a murder victims category (or murderers). For at least one I could not see what was supposed to be the crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
