WIKIPEDIA:CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSION LOG 2012 APRIL 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30

Category:Anubis

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. Everything is already in a higher category. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: The category includes a handful of deities related to Anubis. None of them, except maybe Hermanubis, are really subordinate subjects to Anubis himself, and they're already contained in Category:Egyptian gods or Category:Egyptian goddesses. All of the articles in this category link to Anubis' article in their text. If all the major Egyptian deities had eponymous categories like this, it would be severe overcategorization. A. Parrot ( talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Maybe it should be converted to a navbox? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. A similar problem would arise—there are so many relationships between Egyptian deities that every significant god had at least as many as Anubis. If there were a navbox for each deity who had a similar number of connections, that would mean at least a dozen navboxes. A. Parrot ( talk) 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete and upmerge per nom. I'm not really seeing the need for a separate category devoted to Anubis. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, since everything is already categorized up-tree at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:57, 3 May 2012 (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.

Slovene and Slovenian clean-up

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) 11:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Slovene dramatists and playwrights to Category:Slovenian dramatists and playwrights and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene drawers to Category:Slovenian drawers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene essayists to Category:Slovenian essayists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene generals to Category:Slovenian generals and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene lawyers to Category:Slovenian lawyers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene linguists to Category:Slovenian linguists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene literary critics to Category:Slovenian literary critics and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene literary historians to Category:Slovenian literary historians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene philologists to Category:Slovenian philologists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene physicians to Category:Slovenian physicians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene poets to Category:Slovenian poets and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene women poets to Category:Slovenian women poets and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene communists to Category:Slovenian communists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene socialists to Category:Slovenian socialists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene politicians to Category:Slovenian politicians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene screenwriters to Category:Slovenian screenwriters and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene soldiers to Category:Slovenian soldiers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene partisans to Category:Slovenian partisans and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene translators to Category:Slovenian translators and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene writers to Category:Slovenian writers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene Roman Catholics to Category:Slovenian Roman Catholics and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene Christians to Category:Slovenian Christians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose merging Category:Slovene political people to Category:Slovenian political people and Category:Ethnic Slovene people

Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by religion (will be emptied)

Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by political orientation (will be emptied)

Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by occupation (will be emptied)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where there was agreement to merge the specific "Slovene FOOs" categories to the corresponding "Slovenian FOOs" categories. Each one should be double merged to the "Slovenian FOOs" category and to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Ethnic Slovene people to retain the ethnic categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No objection, but I am nominating Category:Slovenian drawers to be renamed as Category:Slovenian draughtsmen. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- And I think that's probably a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  - It's now heading for upmerging into Category:Draughtsmen, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 1#Category:Drawers. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support it has been shown that dictionaries do not even universally support the idea that Slovene/Slovenian are distinct terms. To use them distinctly we have to fully clue people to the fact that one is an ethnicity, the other a nationality. We should however make it clear that while not all Slovenians are Ethnic Slovenes, the overlap is such that we should not put people in both categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 3 May 2012 (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:Municipalities of Oslo

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Oslo is both a county and a municipality, and thus 'municipalities of Oslo' can by definition only contain one article, namely Oslo. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete. This category makes no sense, it's clearly redundant. __ meco ( talk) 07:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, no use. Geschichte ( talk) 08:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (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:Categories by time period

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 per revised nominations, except merge Category:Categories by era and Category:Categories by time period into a new Category:Categories by period (but manually separate out the geologic ones to a new Category:Categories by geological period); rename Category:American people by time period by state to Category:American people by period by state. This was a bit of a hard discussion to interpret, but I think that the nominator's edits to his nominations generally reflect the consensus that developed. If I messed up in any way, please notify me. As a final note, I point out that Category:Prehistoric animals sorted by geochronology‎ was apparently overlooked when the corresponding plants category was nominated. There may be a need for follow-up nominations for this and other categories (eg, subcategories of some of the renamed ones) that are identified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's overall rationale: "Time" is redundant alongside "period", like the media categories nominated yesterday. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Question: does anybody see any value in grouping the period/era categories between geological, prehistoric, historical and cultural eras? Very few categories span more than one of these ranges ( Category:Treasure troves by era is one that does). – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- I've revised this nomination to separate the geologic time scale at least. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Man, this is a hard nomination to process. Can we at least get the ones that will have the same kind of change together? Overall, I'm in favor of deleting the word "time," but I don't yet know about the switches to "era," "century," etc.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: Sorry, I thought it was neat. OK, now see below for various groups. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To "era": Propose merging Category:Categories by time period to Category:Categories by era; Propose renaming Category:American people by time period by state to Category:American people by era by state; Nominator's rationale: category:Categories by time period is an unnecessary layer in between Category:Categories by time and Category:Categories by era. The latter already holds many sub-cats named "by period". As for the category for American people by state, each of the state sub-cats is named "by era". – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

This is fine, but shouldn't we pick one of "era" and "period" and stick with it?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- One step at a time? I kept "period" in other nominated categories (see below) in order to match the names of categories above and below them in the relevant hierarchies. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  - These should be reverse merged/named, to retain "period", per History by period. Note also that Historical eras redirects to History by period, and has done so for many years. (I had preferred "era" myself, but upon further investigation, "time period" would seem to be more appropriate.) - jc37 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
    - Another way to look at this: an "era" can be a "period", but a "period" is not a "era". - jc37 08:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
      - That suggests that "periods" could be a head category for "fixed periods" (centuries, etc.) as well as "eras", but that "eras" is less ambiguous for cultural eras. In that case the options include (i) keep both but refine the use of "eras" to hold only cultural eras, or (ii) merge/rename all "eras" categories to "periods", and let them hold a mixture of fixed periods and cultural eras. I'm not sure the latter is best; some use "by date" at the top level, and I think I prefer this. It may be best to withdraw this part and hold a separate discussion covering Category:Historical eras and Category:Categories by time. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
        I agree that the numeric date ones (by year/decade/century/millenium) should have "by date" as a parent. And I guess "categories by time period" could be a higher parent to both by date AND by era/period. - jc37 08:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
        I see what you mean: the numeric periods are defined by specific dates, and "eras" are naturally less distinct/discrete. Nevertheless it seems unnecessary to interpose "by date" as an intermediate category layer, so that "by period" would hold only "by date" and "by era". "By date" or "by period" can hold both the numeric and non-numeric ones. Also, I don't see any reason to name categories using the longer expression "time period", so I'm inclined to stick with merging "Categories by time period" into "era", without prejudice to a later discussion on creating " Category:Categories by period". – Fayenatic London (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
        Well, to look at this from the other side, "period" could be considered ambiguous in some cases (and in those cases at least, we may need to retain "time" period). But that aside, as I noted above, the article is at History by period. Not Historical eras (which redirects to History by period). Though we're talking rather generally about this. In some cases, the usage should clearly be period (such as the geological ones below), but in other cases, era vs period isn't as clear. If we're going with only one term, then we should go with period. But if we're doing both, then I could see "era" being used in some cases. - jc37 12:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename both Category:Categories by time period to Category:Categories by era to Category:Categories by period, and rename Category:American people by time period by state to Category:American people by period by state. We don't need both "era" and "period."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- Good plan. I support Mike's amendment to use "by period" in both these cases. – Fayenatic London (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Just remove "time": Propose renaming Category:Writers by time period to Category:Writers by period; Propose renaming Category:Historical novelists by time period to Category:Historical novelists by period; Propose renaming Category:Christian clergy by time period to Category:Christian clergy by period; Propose renaming Category:Bishops by time period to Category:Bishops by period; Propose renaming Category:American people by time period to Category:American people by period; Propose renaming Category:Australian people by time period to Category:Australian people by period; Propose renaming Category:Canadian people by time period to Category:Canadian people by period; Propose renaming Category:English people by time period to Category:English people by period; Propose renaming Category:Irish people by time period to Category:Irish people by period; Propose renaming Category:Spanish people by time period to Category:Spanish people by period; Propose renaming Category:Lists of people by time period to Category:Lists of people by period; Propose renaming Category:Lists of philosophers by time period to Category:Lists of philosophers by period; Nominator's rationale: Rename to shorter name without the redundant word. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename. Let's definitely remove "time" from the category name.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To "century" or "decade": Propose renaming Category:Revolutions by time period to Category:Revolutions by century; Propose renaming Category:Anglican archbishops by time period to Category:Anglican archbishops by century; Propose renaming Category:French writers by time period to Category:French writers by century; Propose renaming Category:Spanish writers by time period to Category:Spanish writers by century; Propose upmerging Category:Slovak people by time period to Category:Slovak people (only contains sub-cat by century); Propose renaming Category:Electro pop by time period to Category:Electro pop by decade; Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the actual contents. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To "date"

Propose renaming Category:Shipwrecks by time period to Category:Shipwrecks by date

Nominator's rationale: Rename; the Shipwrecks category is an odd-one-out as it holds one sub-cat each by year, century and era. I would move it up into Category:Categories by time, which has various other sub-cats "by date". – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn, to be considered separately. – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To ~~"geologic time scale"~~ "geological period"

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric fish by time period to Category:Prehistoric fish by geologic time scale

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric mammals by time period to Category:Prehistoric mammals by geologic time scale

Propose renaming Category:Volcanism by geological period to Category:Volcanism by geologic time scale

Propose renaming Category:Volcanoes by geological period to Category:Volcanoes by geologic time scale

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric plants sorted by geochronology to Category:Prehistoric plants by geologic time scale
Propose splitting Category:Categories by era to Category:Categories by geologic time scale

Nominator's rationale: Rename per geologic time scale; it seems useful to group these apart from later periods, as their contents have no overlap with categories using other ranges of time. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Alternative proposal: Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric fish by time period to Category:Prehistoric fish by geological period; Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric mammals by time period to Category:Prehistoric mammals by geological period; Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric plants sorted by geochronology to Category:Prehistoric plants by geological period; Propose renaming Category:Impact craters on Earth by geologic time scale to Category:Impact craters on Earth by geological period.; Propose splitting Category:Categories by era to Category:Categories by geological period; Rationale for alternative nomination: See discussion below. – Fayenatic London (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep those currently at "geological period," and rename the rest to be "geological period."-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

To "period of setting": Propose renaming Category:Historical novelists by time period to Category:Historical novelists by period of setting; Rationale for revised nomination: changed to Rename using "period of setting" per Johnpacklambert, below. Current title is ambiguous. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Support for now, with no prejudice against revision if we find things do not work, with one caveat. Do we want Category:Historical novelists by period, should it not be Category:History novelists by period of setting of their work or something like that, to make it clear we are classifying them by when they set their work, not when they live. Or is that even what we are doing with the category? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- Well spotted. The current title misled me, and I failed to check what that one contained. I have changed the nomination. I am also open to re-listing Category:Historical novelists by time period along with its sub-cats for possible deletion as WP:OCAT for categorisation by performance. Some novelists make their mark using a particular period of setting; others write notable works in multiple periods. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support for now. This is a comprehensive and complex nomination, and I commend nominator for delving into such a challenging matter. I accede John Pack Lambert's call for clarification with regards to whether we're categorizing the writing or the setting of the stories. Also, with regards to the last sub-group, "geologic time scale", I wonder if "geologic time period" or "geological period" aren't better sounding common names. __ meco ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- Thanks. See above re the historical novelists, which I have changed in order to clarify the purpose of the cat. For the geologic ones, I also would have preferred "geological period", but found that the lead article is geologic time scale and there is already a Category:Geologic time scale, so I followed them. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't really think that's a viable point here. Semantically, different time scales entails different systems of classifying by time, and that is not what the content here would reflect. __ meco ( talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I would be perfectly happy to use "geological periods" instead. In the event of that being approved, I have expanded the nomination with an alternative to rename the one sub-cat that uses "geologic time scale". – Fayenatic London (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Imagine it this way: a "scale" is like a number line, and each "period" is like a point on (or section of) that line. So yes, these (including the volcano ones) should be by "period" and not by "scale". - jc37 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Right. "Geologic" or "geological"? As well as the head category, Category:Lunar geologic periods uses "geologic". – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

A quick search seems to indicate "geologic time" and "geological (time) period". Though this could very well be an ENGVAR situation. - jc37 07:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

That's settled, then. I've expanded the alternative nom in full (to provide backlinks from the new cats). – Fayenatic London (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Ok to try to be clear on each section:
To era - Oppose per my comments directly below that section. I would support a reverse merge/rename from "era" to "period". But I think that that should probably be a separate group nom, to also deal with some of the subcats as well.

Just remove "time" - Weak support - I think in some cases the "time" part of "time period" may be necessary due to vagueness. But I don't strongly oppose this change in general.

To "century" or "decade" - Support - The numeric date categories should be separate from the historical period ones.

To "geological period" - Support per discussion.

To "period of setting" - Support per previous CfD discussion.

I think that covers everything : ) - jc37 04:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Also, while I oppose "To era", what I would suggest instead: Merge both Category:Categories by time period and Category:Categories by era to Category:Categories by historical period. In this case, the use of period would be vague without any other modifying words to clarify its usage. Compare this to the top level category of the works-related cats being Category:Creative works. - jc37 00:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename Category:Impact craters on Earth by geologic time scale to Category:Impact craters on Earth by geochronological unit. The term period has a specific meaning in geology and doesn't apply to all the units in the category. For example, Eocene and Holocene are epochs. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
From what I can tell, epochs are merely subdivisions of specific geological periods. So the use of "period" would seem to be be just fine in these cases. That said, the period cats could be split/diffused into subcats of epochs, as necessary. - jc37 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support. Summarizing my !votes above: Rename anything with "time period" or "era" to "period," except for those that are only by century or decade, in which case use "century" or "decade". Keep "geological period" as needed. Use "period of setting" where needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:58, 13 May 2012 (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:Blueberry sodas

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:Fruit sodas. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Has only one page; has had a population request since creation four years ago. Blueberry doesn't seem to be a common soda flavor; or at least common enough to sustain a category. Suggest either deletion (as the single page in the category, Filbert's Old Time Root Beer, is already in several other soft drink-related categories) or upmerge to Category:Fruit sodas p b p 13:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge to Fruit sodas. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You mean Category:Fruit sodas? FYI, I found a second entry ( Nehi), but again, we still don't really have the five or so we need and that one is also in a number of other fruit soda-related categories p b p 16:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge to Category:Fruit sodas, or Rename to Category:Berry-flavored sodas if that could be populated, as there is almost enough of a category tree here to meet the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 2 May 2012 (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:Kapuso

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Category duplicate to Category:GMA Network. "Kapuso" is a marketing tagline of GMA Network and it is not well known elsewhere outside of the Philippines - WayKurat ( talk) 12:27, 30 April 2012 (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.

Shipwrecks by country

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 to "of." There is a strong desire from all commenters to do something, so this can't be closed as no consensus. The majority of commenters are for the "of" form, though "in" has strong supporters too. There is some concern that it changes the scope of the category, and it does indeed seem to. So some contents may need to be recategorized.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming:

To bring these in line with the dominant form at Category:Shipwrecks by country. 'In' is used with bodies of water (seas, oceans, lakes, rivers), whereas 'in' a particular country generally implies within its land borders, unlikely for most ships, which tend to sink off them. The equivalent for a country's waters would be 'in Finnish waters' (for example). But a country's territorial waters can be disputed and ships categorised this way usually have sunk in reasonable proximity to the country's coastline, though not necessarily within their waters as defined in maritime law. 'of country xxx' works as well for the cases where ships have been wrecked within a country's land mass (in rivers, estuaries, harbours, etc). Benea ( talk) 09:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Support -- However, I would question whether some of the contents are correctly categorised: The French category includes a lot of ships that were deliberately scuttled to form breakwaters in connection with the WWII Normandy landings. These were not "shipwrecks" in the normal meaning of the term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- A subcategory for the scuttled ships might be appropriate. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I am surprised that more use has not been made of "Shipwrecks off"; the only one seems to be Category:Shipwrecks off the coast of Norfolk. Without knowing in advance how things were named, I wondered if there was any ambiguity as to whether "Shipwrecks of Foo" could be understood to refer to ownership ("Wrecked ships of Foo") rather than location. However, it seems to be sufficienly well understood to support the nomination, and add the following:

Propose merging:

Category:Shipwrecks in Indonesia to Category:Shipwrecks of Indonesia

Propose renaming:

The remaining categories that start with "Shipwrecks in" refer to waters rather than countries, and look fine. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose if I'm understanding this correctly. It sounds like the nom's proposal is to rename the categories without any significant change in scope intended. but changing "in" to "of" automatically massively changes the scope. "Shipwrecks in France" = ships that wrecked in French-controlled waters. "Shipwrecks of France" = French ships that were wrecked - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No change in scope is intended or involved, as over the period of the 'of' categories they have been used and understood to refer to location. The articles in these categories are not included because their wrecks are in a country's waters, but rather that they are nearer to their coastline then that any other country. Not to mention that 'in' a country is linguistically usually held to apply its land borders. The majority of categories use the 'of' format and the rationale is understood. There needs to be a rationalisation of names one way or the other, even if this has to involve a format like 'of the French coast' or 'off the French coast'. Benea ( talk) 10:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Standard cat nomenclature is FOO in state, not FOO of state. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 11:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Although many sub-sub-cats of Category:Categories by country use "Foo in state", a good number use "of", including those relating to subjects outside the mainland such as Category:Archipelagoes by country. Those with a close relevance to shipwrecks are Category:Coasts by country and Category:Beaches by country, which both also use "of". The parent categories in Category:Maritime incidents by country do use "in", but as explained by Benea this is not really correct and probably needs to be changed. "Shipwrecks in" is used for the member cats of Category:Shipwrecks by body of water, and AFAIK there is no argument over that, but I do not think it should be used for the country categories. I have sympathy for the longer expression 'of the Fooian coast' (or even 'off') to avoid the possible ambiguity about ownership. However, there are other existing categories in this format e.g. Category:Shipwrecks of United States coasts, and 'Shipwrecks of Foo' is better as the main national category, as it allows the use of more specific sub-cats for the Fooian coast and the Foo river. – Fayenatic L (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. 1)of categories are for things that are official, owned, registered (eg ships), or intrinsic to the place. 2) Would imply a change in scope whether intended or not, leading to confusion. Dankarl ( talk) 12:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, let's get something done. I can live with "in", as territorial waters are regarded as the sovereign territory of the state. If "in" is preferred by the majority, then:

Alternative proposal

Propose merging:

Category:Shipwrecks of Indonesia to Category:Shipwrecks in Indonesia

Propose renaming:

For people opposing the main nomination, please either support this alternative, or indicate what else is better as a new standard form, e.g. "off Foo", "near Foo", "around Foo". If "on/of/off the Fooian coast" is preferred, please state what should be the national head category if there is also a sub-cat for shipwrecks in rivers/lakes. – Fayenatic L (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Support the "of". In the Shipwrecks of Indonesia, we should keep that name, but also create Category:Shipwrecks of the Dutch East Indies from the pre-1945 or so wrecks. I also thing the last ones should all be made to be "of". We should also rethink the shipwrecks category and class as shipwriecks of a place 1-those occuring in the places territorial waters and 2-those involving a ship that is owned by nationals of that country. The ship ownership, and not the nationality of the captian or crew should be the question. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- Comment: as you are proposing to set up a hierarchy for shipwrecks by ownership, wouldn't it be better to avoid using "of", as that would then become ambiguous between location and ownership? – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support "of". It's vague, but it's better than the alternatives. If consensus swings in favour of "in", I'd support expanding it to "in Fooian waters", which doesn't conjure up images of inland shipwrecks. "Shipwrecks off the Fooian coast" definitely doesn't work, since a lot of the wrecks are in rivers and lakes. DoctorKubla ( talk) 13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment sometimes shipwrecks are found on what is now dry land, the first one that comes to mind is discussed here. Cheers. Haus^Talk 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Support of. Looking at the Australian and Indonesian cases I would prefer over the in usage Satu Suro 08:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I can Support in. "Of" will change the scope to ownership even if that is not the intent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- Note to closing admin: that was a "support" for the alternative, not the original nom. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support of. I was the original nominator to standardise the minority usage of 'in' to the majority of 'of' (6 compared to over 30). I support the additional steps of Fayenatic to standardise the remaining categories to 'of'. The 'of' usage has by far and away been the dominant one and it is not changing the accepted usage of these categories to use 'of', it is actually 'in' that would be the change. It merely standardises to the scheme already in dominant usage. I understand the claims that it could be confusing, but in the past these categories have been well understood to refer to location and not ownership. Benea ( talk) 14:05, 11 May 2012 (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:Cream soda

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Cream soda to Category:Cream sodas

Nominator's rationale: Categories are generally pluralized. You have Category:Citrus sodas, Category:Grape sodas, Category:Orange sodas, etc p b p 04:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Can be speedied, I think. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (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:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism

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 to Category:Unionism in Ireland and Category:Unionism in Scotland respectively. – Fayenatic London (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Irish unionism to Category:British unionism

Propose merging Category:Scottish unionism to Category:British unionism

Nominator's rationale: :Nominator's rationale: After a difficult discussion, the rename of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism was completed today. Then, 2 new categories were created (actually 3 including ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism ). My understanding of the general consensus during the previous CfD discussion was that the category was to capture the general 'movement' towards union with the UK and its predecessor states, and was to be inclusive of all relevant geographies in the isles. These new categories risk confusion - as aren't British unionists in Scotland Scottish as well? The same applies for northern Ireland, and pre-1922 Ireland, where, technically, a unionist ~~would~~could have British ~~nationality~~ identity as well as Irish one. These titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation, and I'd suggest delete/upmerge for now, followed by a consensus conversation on the talk page on how to move forward with this category rather than further unilateral subdividing and category creation. Also, the separation between ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Irish unionism and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism is also not trivial, as the two are clearly linked...our friends at citizendium list them as synonyms: [1] -- KarlB ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is rather hard to reply to a completely blank "Nominator's rationale", but the category should assist navigation. Irish Unionism is quite distinct from Unionism in Scotland. Moonraker ( talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
note there was an edit conflict which was why moonraker didn't see the rationale. -- KarlB ( talk) 03:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- No, KarlB, when I replied to your two separate merge proposals both "rationales" were blank. Anyone looking at the page history can confirm that. Now that the rationales have been added, there is little which needs a reply, I find it all so comical. Moonraker ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  Please don't use a mocking tone. I added the merge requests and as I was gathering the two together, I deferred finalizing the justification until I got back to this page to make the edits; thus you are correct they were blank for about 6 minutes, but it would have been blank for 4 minutes if we didn't run into an edit conflict (I tried to save but you had already edited). It just means you were quick to respond, which is not a problem, but let's please not make a big deal out of it - my note above was just to explain why your comment says 'blank' when in fact it isn't blank anymore. -- KarlB ( talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws. For example the comment that "pre-1922 Ireland, where, technically, a unionist would have British nationality as well as Irish one" is a comic masterpiece. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  I'd ask that you stop the ad-hominem attacks. If it is comic to refer to people in Ireland as being British, please explain why. Thanks. "The new, expanded United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland meant that the state had to re-evaulate its position on the civil rights of Catholics, and extend its definition of Britishness to the Irish people." British_people-- KarlB ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
comment Also fwiw, if consensus ends up being to keep these categories, I would nonetheless propose a rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Ireland and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Scotland to match the head articles, whose titles have already been the subject of previous battles. -- KarlB ( talk) 03:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

For consistency, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism should then become ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Britain or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in the United Kingdom. If the first, it would plainly exclude all Unionism within Ireland, North or South. If the second, it would not cover the whole period of Scottish Unionism, which goes back to before the creation of the United Kingdom. Moonraker ( talk) 05:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

comment I agree; RA had proposed that the article 'British Unionism' be renamed to 'Unionism (United Kingdom)' or similar. My argument against that rename was the same as yours - anachronism b/c of Scotland/etc, before creation of UK - (in addition you may note that the history of the name of that page itself has been disputed in the past). In any case, consensus wasn't with me, and seemed to lean towards classifying based on the end result (UK or British). In any case, I don't want to rehash all of those arguments. If consensus is to keep these two cats, renaming them to match the article head is reasonable and in line with standard practice, and if the British unionism article rename discussion can be had on the talk page there, then one could rename the category afterwards. There was a long discussion about the title of the Unionism in Scotland article (here is on relevant quote from one page move: "moved Scottish Unionism to Unionists (Scotland): the article is about British Unionism: "Scottish Unionism" is confusing" (MaisOui) I wonder if he would at least support a rename of the categories (or his mind may have changed in 6 years! :) )-- KarlB ( talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Strong keep both (I assume that this is one discussion and not two, despite the two headers) - Unionism in Scotland has its own parent article, and is a huge and highly important topic, not least in the period leading up to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The strength, or weakness, of Scottish unionism will largely determine whether the UK continues as a state post-2014. Thus this small movement in a corner of northern Europe holds a key to the future of many international organisations, including the UN Security Council, NATO and the EU Commission. Taking our eyes off the future and casting them to the past, looking back over the last 70 years, and especially the last 40, the long, slow decline of Scottish unionism is one of the key areas of academic study in the field of Scottish politics, and has received literally mountains of broadsheet coverage. Actually, I find it hard to think of a topic that is more important to modern Scotland than this one, and here we are at Wikipedia discussing deleting the associated cat. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- Note to closing admin - I have unified the headers as there is only one 'Nominator's rationale' statement, which included both cats. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  - comment I appreciate the strong feelings, but please note that this category you so value was created today. In fact, in a previous discussion on ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism, where all the articles on Scottish unionism had lived for years, you yourself recommended that it be renamed to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism.-- KarlB ( talk) 03:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    - Comment - err... so what? I suggested that cat:Unionism be moved to have the same name as the parent article. That has zero relevance to this new discussion. Wikipedia lacks many cats and articles and templates and portals and projects that ought to exist, and User:Moonraker has done us a service in creating these much-needed cats. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - not only does the Scottish unionism cat have a parent article, but it also has a matching sister category: Category:Scottish nationalism. How on earth could we delete one without deleting the other? It would be like deleting Category:Republican Party (United States) while retaining Category:Democratic Party (United States). They are opposite sides of the same coin. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose -- These are not the same movement. They might have a new common parent Category:Unionism in in the United Kingdom, by a REname of Category:British unionism. Scottish Nationalism is in fact the converse of Unionism: Unionists want to stay in UK; Nationalists want to leave or have greater autonomy. "British Unionism" reminds me of the British Union of Fascists, which was something completely different. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
comment if you feel the consensus could shift, you could propose a rename of Category:British unionism; I'm not going to...-- KarlB ( talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Previous CfD The ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism was previously discussed here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_14#Category:Unionism; as you can see from the arguments made at the time, deleting or splitting it up into per-country flavors of unionism was decided against at the time. A quote from TimRollPickering from that debate which may be germane (not implying his support for this CfD, just thought the logic was sound) : "Keep "Unionist" for the historic Scottish Unionist Party referred to Ireland, not Scotland (the Union there wasn't a major issue at the time), the same as in the Conservatives' full name "Conservative and Unionist Party". Sometimes category structures throw up unintended consequences but rigid separation would make them worse." -- KarlB ( talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. The 2007 discussion decided against splitting the category. It did not decide against creating subcategories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment As a complete outsider to this debate, the titles Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism rely on a reader knowing that "unionism" here means "union inside the UK" and not "union inside Ireland" or "union inside Scotland" respectively. I know this, because I'm British, but why would someone of a different nationality know it? I don't see any reason to merge the categories, but "Category:British unionism in Ireland" and "Category:British unionism in Scotland", both being subcategories of "Category:British unionism", would be clearer in the context of Wikipedia generally. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
comment thanks, I also agree these terms are confusing; and as stated above, if consensus is to keep, I would vote to rename them in line with the head articles, i.e. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Ireland and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Scotland. Would you agree with that? -- KarlB ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Strong keep both, but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles. Unionism in Scotland and Unionism in Ireland are very different shaped creatures, reflecting the very different sets of issues which the United Kingdom has raised in the histories and politics of the two countries. They should be kept as separate categories, to group the issues for each country, and avoid multiply parenting the relevant articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism. I don't know why the nominator has taken a sudden interest in categories relating to Ireland, but his enthusiasm for proposing changes (and verbosely defending his proposals) is sadly not matched by even a basic understanding of the issues involved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd ask again that you stop the ad-hominem and condescending attacks. Please argue based on the issues at hand. Thanks.-- KarlB ( talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
I am not criticising you as a person; I am criticising the disruptively ill-informed contributions which you make to these discussions. And I'll ask again that you cease to waste the time of other editors by making structural proposals on complex topics where your knowledge is so limited. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Whatever BHG. I know a personal attack when I see one. Calling me ignorant, lacking understanding, limited, comical, silly... thats personal. Feel free to critique the ideas, but stop attacking me, otherwise I'm going to refer this onwards. -- KarlB ( talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Please refer yourself to some proper study of the many historical works which will explain to you why Unionism is a "mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation", rather than complaining that you find the reaction of other editors condescending. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

comment ok let's take a simple example - take this fellow: Thomas_Macknight He was born in England, but lived in Ireland; but he was a unionist. So, is he a British unionist or an Irish unionist'? And is Irish unionist and Irish unionism a subset or type of British unionism? This point is debated, for example by the guy who created these categories. You yourself voted to rename the category to British unionism, knowing full well it would contain Irish people and ideas. So yes, I realize ethnicity is mixed up in this, which is why I've maintained from day 1, these cats should be geographical, not identity based, as it gets too complex otherwise; I'm glad you at least support a rename, which I also do, so we agree on that point.-- KarlB ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Karl, it's interesting that you ask the question, because once again you are raising questions to which the answer could be a very fat book. I don't have time to write a book for you, so I will keep this very brief by noting that the article you link to says that Macknight was "born in Gainford in County Durham". If you had simply followed the link, you would have seen that County Durham is in England .. yet you say that "he was born in Ireland".

Do you see why I am expressing the concerns about the basis of your contributions to these discussions? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Which underlines my point. Mixing up ethnicity in the titles is a bad idea. In any case, we agree, so I think at the very least a rename is in order. (ps you're right I thought he was Irish b/c of his book title I didn't look closely at the place of birth, now corrected)-- KarlB ( talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep both, but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles, Snappy ( talk) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Support rename. I see no problem with ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Ireland or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Scotland, except that they are inconsistent with the current parent ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism. I would favour renaming that, either to avoid the word "British" or else to refer to the "British Crown" instead, but of course that's another discussion to be had. No one has so far suggested deleting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism, which in my view should be kept as a sub-category of Unionism in Ireland. There are also some ongoing struggles over the relationships between sub-categories. If others look at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Irish unionists (which I created at about the same time), they will see that KarlB is seeking to include it in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionists, apparently believing that before 1922 all Irish people were British. To me that seems a mistake. Clearly some individual Irish unionists were also (or else were considered to be) British, but if that is a problem then it can be overcome by including them in more than one sub-category. KarlB has also included ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Irish unionism in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism, which I did not do myself, considering that "British" should not include "Irish", so including a hatnote from ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism instead. I suggest that this question is best resolved when the category names have settled down. Moonraker ( talk) 04:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
withdraw delete and rename Consensus seems clear to keep these new categories, so I'm withdrawing the delete nomination and reinforcing consensus for rename to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Ireland and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Scotland to avoid tricky identity issues on this sensitive subject. Then perhaps let tempers cool a bit and find a better name for ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:British unionism in the future. Also Moonraker could propose how ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism should be thus treated, since it is intertwined with Irish unionism, and in the modern definition they are often very similar - what is the distinguishing factor? Perhaps this can also be clarified in the Irish unionism article itself.-- KarlB ( talk) 04:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Irish unionism is a redirect to the Unionism in Ireland article, which no doubt could be improved. I said "‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism... in my view should be kept as a sub-category of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Unionism in Ireland". That seems quite an obvious choice, as Ulster unionism, said to be "intertwined with Irish unionism", is clearly a sub-set, relating to a much smaller area. If anyone had a different view, I think the case for it would need to be made. Moonraker ( talk) 05:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply

agreed that a subset makes sense; the question is what defines membership in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Ulster unionism? is it based on location + time? this book may be of use: [2], but as you can see from the table of contents the roots stretch far back in time, so the bright line of separation between the two will eventually have to just be a judgement call. -- KarlB ( talk) 05:51, 2 May 2012 (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:Category loop

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 delete as unneeded test page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Isn't this why we have test wiki? Why test it live on a project — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

We have moved the test suite to testwiki, so the category is no longer needed. Thanks –


mike@
enwiki:~$

01:59, 30 April 2012 (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:User rn-2

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Just has a test page. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:43, 30 April 2012 (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:User eml:pra-N

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:User eml:pra-N to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: This is malformed and should be fixed, but I'm not sure how. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete - only one entry, appears to be miscategorised anyway (title says pra-n but header says pra-2), WP:TNT is needed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 11 May 2012 (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:Porte class gate vessels

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: Keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, not part of a scheme — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

~~Merge~~ probably better to upmerge to Category:Naval ships of Canada. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- Whoops. I didn't mean merge - which would remove the contents elsewhere - I meant include this category within a larger category. It seems fine as it is now so changing to Keep. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. The rationale is now invalid, category has been integrated into the existing ship schemes, and now contains three articles and a template, with three more articles on the way. Benea ( talk) 11:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per Benea. Manxruler ( talk) 22:07, 2 May 2012 (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:People in a first-cousin relationship

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature, trivial, almost random association — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

comment delete. This is not defining; it's just something that happened to them - marrying of close family happened in a lot of cultures, and still does in some cases. -- KarlB ( talk) 01:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete, per extensive precedents not to categorize people by marriage or relationship status. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:People who married their sibling would be far more important than this, and we certainly don't have that. As noted, marrying a first cousin is still quite common—in many places now-a-days, there are restrictions on marrying lineal descendants or progenitors (and siblings), but not cousins. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:OCAT by random point of commonality that fails to constitute a defining characteristic of the people in question. While it's a type of relationship that's certainly stigmatized in some cultures, it isn't stigmatized in many others, and often wasn't historically stigmatized even in some of the cultures that do stigmatize it today — which means it isn't notable at all, because there isn't any sort of cultural unanimity on whether it's even an unusual or noteworthy thing to do. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. I spoke too soon, and perhaps did a WP:BEANS job with my comment above: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_1#Category:Sibling marriage or relationship. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Also, FWIW, this is more or less a re-creation of People who married their cousins, which was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete and salt per GOLF. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (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:Middlesex County Cricket Club Executive Board Members

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: Articlify. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: redlink organization — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Articlify -- This is a list article in category space. The redlink arose becasue the link was to the Board, not to Middlesex County Cricket Club, which is a first class county cricket club and certainly notable. I am nevertheless dubious whehtrer we need a category for the members of its governing board. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:43, 30 April 2012 (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:Management Education

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 to pre-existing and properly capitalized Category:Management education. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what this is. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:25, 30 April 2012 (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:Films directed by Carl Rinsch

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: redlink director — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete, unless of course the article is created in the next few days. Lugnuts ( talk) 07:06, 30 April 2012 (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:GMA Network, Inc.

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Just an image and a userpage — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Support - category duplicate to Category:GMA_Network - WayKurat ( talk) 12:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. There are actually two different topics underlying this. GMA Network is a television network. GMA Network, Inc. is the parent company that owns the network. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. For the time being, I would suggest deleting as nominated, without prejudice to re-creation if it can be populated in the future. There is not much use for it in its current state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 17 May 2012 (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:CEFAT Alumni

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 to Category:People educated at Centro de Estudios y Formación Actoral. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: Per CEFAT redlink. At least, rename per proper caps. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: Seems to mean Centro de Formacion Actoral of TV Azteca. Spanish Wikipedia refers to it as CEFAC, but even there it is uncited ( es:Televisión Azteca#Centro de Estudios y Formación Actoral (CEFAC)). The abbreviation "CEFAC" is also included in the English article Iliana Fox. Old CEFACians? <ducks> – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
- ... I was hoping for "Old Fatties", personally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. I have converted the contents to a list at TV Azteca#Acting school. – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:People educated at Centro de Estudios y Formación Actoral - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Change to Rename; I have created a shortcut at Centro de Estudios y Formación Actoral. – Fayenatic London (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2012 (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:United States federal healthcare legislation

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. The sources that have been provided are convincing, and it makes the stated opposition to the rename look an awful lot like an artificial distinction based on word definitions rather than on how the terminology is used in practice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:United States federal healthcare legislation to Category:United States federal health legislation

Nominator's rationale: Another one where healthcare is too restrictive a category. The articles within contain laws about food safety, coal mine health, genetic non-discrimination, etc. etc. I don't think it's' worth having two such categories (one for health and one for healthcare); instead, we should rename, to more accurately reflect the scope of the category as currently filled in by editor consensus.

Google scholar (as an indication of popularity of the terms)

— KarlB ( talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Sounds sensible.— GoldRingChip 00:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment -- There seems to be a current move to convert all "healthcare" articles to health. A legislature can provide a mechanism for health care, but it is incapable of legislating to make people healthy! Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
comment there are many instances of a legislature trying to do exactly that. Here are a few: Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act; Child_Nutrition_Act. In other words, there is a fair amount of legislation that is not really about provision of health care, but about enabling of 'healthly' environments; and as indicated through the google scholar searches, 'health legislation' is typically how such work is described. -- KarlB ( talk) 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Health and healthcare are not the same thing. Create a new Category:United States federal health legislation to include all the non-healthcare issues such as nutrition, workplace safety, etc. The healthcare topics can remain where there, but with Category:United States federal healthcare legislation made a subcat of the broader health category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply
question could you provide some more advice or direction on how you would divide this category? Or more importantly, can you find any 3rd party sources which differentiate between "healthcare legislation" and "health legislation"? The challenge is that any particular piece of legislation is likely to have many components (and runs into hundreds or thousands of pages) - it may have funding for research, advocacy, public health campaigns, basic science, building of hospitals, revision of benefits packages, insurance, nutrition, environmental aspects, etc. I'm just worried that if we create two categories, we are dooming future editors to the difficult task of sussing out whether there is any 'healthcare' within the health bill sitting before them, and whether there is 'enough' healthcare to qualify. You note 'workplace safety' above - suppose a bill puts in place laws around workplace safety, but also has provisions for reimbursement of medical expenses. Does it now become a piece of 'healthcare legislation'? Or suppose that section of the bill is struck - and it becomes now *only* about rules in the workplace - should we then change the category? The edges of this difference which you seem to see so clearly are IMHO very very fuzzy, and not worth asking wiki-editors to decide/divide.-- KarlB ( talk) 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

comment I thought the following quote by BrownHairedGirl might be useful here: "but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions." -- KarlB ( talk) 03:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose health legislation is mandatory vacinations, healthcare legislation is Obamacare, the Clinton Health Plan, Medicare and lots of other things. These peices of legislation address the process by which people recieve healthcare, while health legislation addresses basic public health issues. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
comment Thanks. If you could provide any sources that classify these differently as you propose, it would be appreciated. I am willing to bet that you cannot find them. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, 3rd party sources must consistently refer to legislation in this way. I have found that 3rd party sources use the terms interchangably, and do *not* differentiate the way you stated. Take Obamacare, aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In scholarly papers, it is referred to more commonly as "health legislation" than as "healthcare legislation" (by a slim margin) [3]. Most other bills will have the same result. Thus, it is clear that the outside world does not differentiate between these terms. Even wikipedia doesn't differentiate. There is no reason for the categories to do so. Per your example above, vaccinations are intended to prevent disease, which is normally a healthcare function. Public health is, to some in the field, included in the definition of health care; others feel it is a separate field.

Take this bill for example: Pandemic_and_All_Hazards_Preparedness_Act - it covers issues of public preparedness, but it also covers medical response in case of emergency (thus provision of healthcare). Are you suggesting that it would be classified in both places? If so, it will not be hard to show that almost every bill has both public health/population-based approaches, workplace-based approaches, nutrition-based approaches, and medical/health service delivery-based approaches. Thus, most bills will end up in both categories - hence no need for two categories - better to have a properly named, more general category.

Any attempt to classify articles separately is thus WP:OR. -- KarlB ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Note to closing admin I've asked for any evidence from other editors that 3rd party sources differentiate between "health legislation" and "healthcare legislation". Thus far, none has been provided. Thus, I'd ask that the closing admin take this lack of evidence into account when closing this CfD.-- KarlB ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply
- When did we start having to provide sources for statements made in CfD? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply
  of course sources arent required, but cfd is also not a vote, it is about making a convincing argument about whether a category is defining, which is dependent on 3rd party sources. If one side presents evidence that 3rd party sources use two terms interchangeably, and the other side asserts that the two terms are different but are unable to find or present anything to back it up, i would say fact should trump opinion in this matter. In this particular cfd, no evidence has been presented and no evidence is likely to be found (ive looked a fair bit) to show that there is any consistent difference made by any 3rd party source between health legislation and healthcare legisltion, thus it should be renamed to the *much* more common usage. if you are not convinced by the evidence provided to date, please tell me what sort of evidence would change your mind, and i will endeavor to find more. KarlB ( talk) 12:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC) reply

comment The following related CfD recently closed with result of merge: Healthcare law -> Health law. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law -- KarlB ( talk) 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename. The overlap between "healthcare" and "health" is quite high, and so I think we should standardize to "health" when possible to be more inclusive of contents.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply
comment A few more examples of how the NY Times uses this word:
- Republicans Call Health Legislation a Tax Increase health legislation in title, health care legislation in body
- Obama Strategy on Health Legislation Appears to Pay Off health legislation in title
- Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation health legislation in title, health care legislation in photo caption, then both interchangably in body
- Bills Stalled, Hospitals Fear Rising Unpaid Care both health legislation and health care legislation in body. etc etc etc...
Overall there are 918 articles in the NY Times alone that use both terms in the same article. I think for me that is sufficient evidence that outside sources do not distinguish between these terms in the way some eds here would prefer. And unfortunately, no evidence has been provided to back up their points of view, and no criteria have been offered to allow us to determine whether a given 1000-page piece of legislation is really about health or really about health care or really about both. In such a situation, I believe the best recourse is 3rd party sources, and it seems 3rd party sources don't differentiate. -- KarlB ( talk) 20:09, 17 May 2012 (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.

April 30

Category:Anubis

Slovene and Slovenian clean-up

Category:Municipalities of Oslo

Category:Categories by time period

Category:Blueberry sodas

Category:Kapuso

Shipwrecks by country

Category:Cream soda

Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism

Category:Category loop

Category:User rn-2

Category:User eml:pra-N

Category:Porte class gate vessels

Category:People in a first-cousin relationship

Category:Middlesex County Cricket Club Executive Board Members

Category:Management Education

Category:Films directed by Carl Rinsch

Category:GMA Network, Inc.

Category:CEFAT Alumni

Category:United States federal healthcare legislation

April 30

Category:Anubis

Slovene and Slovenian clean-up

Category:Municipalities of Oslo

Category:Categories by time period

Category:Blueberry sodas

Category:Kapuso

Shipwrecks by country

Category:Cream soda

Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism

Category:Category loop

Category:User rn-2

Category:User eml:pra-N

Category:Porte class gate vessels

Category:People in a first-cousin relationship

Category:Middlesex County Cricket Club Executive Board Members

Category:Management Education

Category:Films directed by Carl Rinsch

Category:GMA Network, Inc.

Category:CEFAT Alumni

Category:United States federal healthcare legislation

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook