Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of China
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.
Keep temporarily This and all sub-categories are hybrid categories that need to be split into a 1912-49 category and a Taiwan category befor this can be implemented, as there is a lot of aminaland material in the category and sub-categories. The consensus is that WP should treat the Nationalist mainland republic as distinct from the present Taiwan. The best course will be to create the requisite sub-cats annd move all content to them. After that the present category can be deleted or upmerged.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Foreign relations has already been renamed. Rename Bilateral relations. All the articles have been
specifically renamed in this group RM discussion with the following closing comment ::Some editors still opposed the move of individual articles where the main topic might be relations between certain countries and pre-1949 China, the one where ROC was still in power on the mainland. On the other hand,
User:BDD has argued that our article on
Germany–United States relations is expected to cover the whole succession of governments of Germany in one article. Those who want special coverage of pre-1949 relations seem like they would require a split of every current article which contains any mention of the pre-1949 period. That would go against the consistency argument which seems to be widely held by those commenting here. There was also a very weighty (and hotly contested)
move discussion in February 2012 where
Republic of China was moved to
Taiwan. The logic of that move might suggest that the 'relations' articles would be expected to move as well, which is the topic of the current discussion. The default for categories should be the modern name and there's very little exclusive pre 1949 stuff in them anyway. It's time we stopped heel dragging in this area.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
23:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Looking at the Japanese sub-category, some of its contents are specifically about Japan and the island of Taiwain as a possession of Japan, and have no relationship to the republic of China at all.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:03, 2 May 2013 (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:Accounting in Portugal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tractor aircraft
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The
tractor configuration for an aircraft is not defining, due to its being, predominantly, the "standard" configuration for propeller-driven aircraft, and overwhelmingly the standard configuration for propeller-driven multiengine aircraft. The
pusher configuration is notable and defining (and is properly categorised), but it is
WP:OC to have this category seperate from "propeller aircraft", where it can be assumed to be the case unless otherwise noted (as
Tractor configuration notes, "Today, propeller-driven aircraft are assumed to be tractors unless it is stated otherwise."); it is the same as if, were we classifiying cars, we had
Category:Front-engined automobiles - it's simply so "normal" that it isn't noteworthy in the least, vs.
Category:Mid-engined automobiles and
Category:Rear-engined automobiles, which are defined by their engine/configuration (and whose categories need population, but that's another matter).
The BushrangerOne ping only02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
delete Properly populating this category would empty its parent. This is so overwhelmingly the normal case that there's no need to subcat it.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see the problem in emptying the parent category, and making it a container category for subcategories, and concept articles. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
After considering this some more, I'll withdraw this nomination, because Hmains is right - it makes more sense to "complete the set", especially as it appears on pages ("single-engine aircraft"+"tractor aircraft" is more useful than "single-engine aircraft"+"propeller aircraft"). -
The BushrangerOne ping only06:39, 29 March 2013 (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:Foreign relations of the Republic of China
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.
Keep temporarily This and all sub-categories are hybrid categories that need to be split into a 1912-49 category and a Taiwan category befor this can be implemented, as there is a lot of aminaland material in the category and sub-categories. The consensus is that WP should treat the Nationalist mainland republic as distinct from the present Taiwan. The best course will be to create the requisite sub-cats annd move all content to them. After that the present category can be deleted or upmerged.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Foreign relations has already been renamed. Rename Bilateral relations. All the articles have been
specifically renamed in this group RM discussion with the following closing comment ::Some editors still opposed the move of individual articles where the main topic might be relations between certain countries and pre-1949 China, the one where ROC was still in power on the mainland. On the other hand,
User:BDD has argued that our article on
Germany–United States relations is expected to cover the whole succession of governments of Germany in one article. Those who want special coverage of pre-1949 relations seem like they would require a split of every current article which contains any mention of the pre-1949 period. That would go against the consistency argument which seems to be widely held by those commenting here. There was also a very weighty (and hotly contested)
move discussion in February 2012 where
Republic of China was moved to
Taiwan. The logic of that move might suggest that the 'relations' articles would be expected to move as well, which is the topic of the current discussion. The default for categories should be the modern name and there's very little exclusive pre 1949 stuff in them anyway. It's time we stopped heel dragging in this area.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
23:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Looking at the Japanese sub-category, some of its contents are specifically about Japan and the island of Taiwain as a possession of Japan, and have no relationship to the republic of China at all.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:03, 2 May 2013 (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:Accounting in Portugal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tractor aircraft
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The
tractor configuration for an aircraft is not defining, due to its being, predominantly, the "standard" configuration for propeller-driven aircraft, and overwhelmingly the standard configuration for propeller-driven multiengine aircraft. The
pusher configuration is notable and defining (and is properly categorised), but it is
WP:OC to have this category seperate from "propeller aircraft", where it can be assumed to be the case unless otherwise noted (as
Tractor configuration notes, "Today, propeller-driven aircraft are assumed to be tractors unless it is stated otherwise."); it is the same as if, were we classifiying cars, we had
Category:Front-engined automobiles - it's simply so "normal" that it isn't noteworthy in the least, vs.
Category:Mid-engined automobiles and
Category:Rear-engined automobiles, which are defined by their engine/configuration (and whose categories need population, but that's another matter).
The BushrangerOne ping only02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
delete Properly populating this category would empty its parent. This is so overwhelmingly the normal case that there's no need to subcat it.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see the problem in emptying the parent category, and making it a container category for subcategories, and concept articles. --
65.92.180.137 (
talk)
14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
After considering this some more, I'll withdraw this nomination, because Hmains is right - it makes more sense to "complete the set", especially as it appears on pages ("single-engine aircraft"+"tractor aircraft" is more useful than "single-engine aircraft"+"propeller aircraft"). -
The BushrangerOne ping only06:39, 29 March 2013 (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.