Category:Television shows set in the fictional populated places in the United States
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: I don't see the point of this category. No inclusion criteria, no description of purpose
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
JDDJS (
talk) 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
CAWylie: don't you mean "merge", then, rather than "delete"? They are different outcomes. –
FayenaticLondon 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Categories cannot be "merged". The articles' categories listed in them must be changed (back). — Wyliepedia 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
CAWylie: Right, that's what happens when we tell a bot to merge categories: the members are moved from one category to another, by editing the articles (or sub-cat pages). In contrast, when we program a bot to delete a category, the member articles are edited remove the category altogether, so the only way to trace and put them somewhere else would be by reviewing the bot's contribs (usually
Special:Contributions/Cydebot). –
FayenaticLondon 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-
WP:DEFINING. The fact that their settings aren't real places is not a substantive point of commonality between shows that are set in different fictional places.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reasons I gave at CFD for the Films category pointed out by Fayenatic London above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Latin and Particular churches
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 and reinstate former categorisation. –
FayenaticLondon 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Propose deleting and put the contents back in the categories where they were beforeCategory:Latin Church
Keep: Duplicate categorisation may be motivated, but in this case I have a hard time seeing why. Categorisation in the parent category should be enough. Although these two categories in question may use two terms rarely in use in mainstream language, I also have hard time see that disqualify their existance on Wikipedia.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge back -- We cannot delete, because both main articles will be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Religion and law 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_24#Religious_law, at which "Religious law" categories by country were renamed to "Law about religion". Now, we no longer need this extra layer for France, and the US categories can be renamed to match the others. –
FayenaticLondon 13:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Note to closer: "merger" here requires copying the head categories onto the target. –
FayenaticLondon 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- It makes sense. The target is a better description.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by DreamWorks Television
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: DreamWorks along with Amblin Entertainment, are now part of Amblin Partners, DreamWorks TV shows are now marketed under the Amblin Television brand.
47.54.189.22 (
talk) 12:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
OK: We have to do this since Amblin Partners was formed last year. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MSDIS (
talk •
contribs) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Categorize television works by the name of the company that created them. Companies merge, split, rename themselves and lots of other things, but the company that actually created the work will remain intact. This is different than universities, where historically the institution is generally more stable than the name. In this case, the actual name of the creator institution matters and should be preserved in categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose for reasons given by Johnpacklambert.
Trivialist (
talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People's Republic of China painters from Beijing
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.
Support All Even as someone with reservations about China=PRC, the articles for each city is just the city name so the corresponding articles don't need a country and I don't think there are so many non-Chinese painters to require a subcategory by nationality.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support all (1) Non-Chinese painters from these provinces (etc.) will be rare; (2) No need to disambiguate, as there are no other places with the name; (3) We decided some time ago that the (Nationalist) Republic of China would be known in WP as Taiwan, so that there is no need to split out PRC; and (4) There is no particular need to distinguish the period of PRC (since c.1948) from earlier periods of Chinese hiostry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - "People's Republic of China" here denotes the period (as opposed to ROC, Qing dynasty, Ming dynasty, etc.), not nationality. Some of the parent categories are already quite large and need to be organized by period, others will become bigger as more articles are created. I'm studying Chinese art history and can easily identify a few hundred missing articles of notable artists that can potentially be added to these categories. Also, the nominator should have had the courtesy to notify the creator
Nlu. -
Zanhe (
talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Before the creation of "a few hundred missing articles", the majority of these parental categories are very small (<10 articles) and further categorizing them is considered
WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Besides, in which other country are painters (or any other profession) categorized by both administrative area and period?
Timmyshin (
talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Which other country is as big as China and has an art history as long? Many Chinese provinces are as big or bigger than major European countries and have art histories at least as long. Chinese painters have been recorded by name since the 3rd century (
Cao Buxing,
Wei Xie (no article yet),
Gu Kaizhi, etc.). Not every period needs to be divided by province (for obvious reasons less art has survived from earlier periods), but more recent ones, especially PRC and Qing, certainly do. -
Zanhe (
talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
No. This has nothing to do with China's size or history but everything to do with policy.
WP:OCLOCATION: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Also see
WP:NARROWCAT.
Timmyshin (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Chinese provincial boundaries are far more relevant than American state boundaries, which all have their own artist categories, because of more entrenched regionalism in China. Chinese art is commonly divided by regional lines, see
Shanghai School,
Wu School,
Lingnan School,
Anhui School, etc. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Zanhe's argument, which was the rationale for creating them in the first place. (I.e., PRC denotes period, as opposed to ROC or a prior dynasty.) --
Nlu (
talk) 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I might have opposed the proposal if there would have been enough content for a more complete split by period in each city, but since that is not the case it doesn't make sense to have a split for just one single period.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect and
Marcocapelle: There seems to be some confusion here. The categories are not divided by cities, but by provinces (Beijing, Chongqing, and Shanghai are exceptional because they are province-level municipalities). -
Zanhe (
talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It does not really change things. There is not enough content for a more complete split by period in each province.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The provinces in most cases have remained with relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes. When we have a case of Hebei with 5 articles between the two categories the split does not make sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert, this might be true except for the fact that the populations in these Chinese provinces are much larger. Most of them can be fairly large-sized nations by themselves, by population. Also, as to your earlier comment, "relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes" doesn't really argue for or against the concept, actually, but isn't quite true anyway (they have had the same boundaries only since the Yuan Dynasty (arguably Song)). --
Nlu (
talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not the size of population that matters, but the amount of articles per period in every of these provinces. As said before, there isn't enough content for a split by the intersection of province and period, while of course it's perfectly fine to categorize by province and by period separately.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People's Republic of China people by occupation
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.
Object to deletion. I also object to merger in some cases. I checked calligraphers and painters, and found them to have subcategories by period. Defining some of these as PRC is distinguishing them as belonging to a recent period, as opposed to the Han or Ming period. I agree to the principle of moving these to "Chinese" categories, but in some cases something in the category name as to their period needs to be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Nonsensical examples. British history is very different from China's. The independence of Ireland for Britain is by no means comparable to the all-encompassing upheavals that typified dynastic changes in China, which is why almost all books about the history of Chinese literature or art are divided by dynastic periods. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Exactly my point. You are the first one to bring up Great Britain in a totally irrelevant analogy.
Timmyshin (
talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
My original analogy is relevant (China's rule of Vietnam vs. Britain's rule of Ireland), but you distorted it by equating Britain's loss of Ireland with China's dynastic changes, which is nonsensical. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Your analogy is nonsensical.
Victorian era is but the reign of one monarch, how can this compare with a dynasty?
Timmyshin (
talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Sigh... I brought up the Victorian era for the very narrow sense that Britain ruled Ireland at the time, in the same way that the Tang dynasty ruled Vietnam, which you said should be excluded from China for that reason. Then you distorted the analogy in all kinds of ridiculous ways to muddle the water. I really don't see any point reasoning with you any further. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep all - "People's Republic of China" is not a one-dimensional concept. It's considered equal to "China" only in the spatial sense, but temporally, it represents only the most recent period of China's long history. In these categories, "People's Republic of China" clearly denotes the period, not the space. -
Zanhe (
talk) 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep all - per Zanhe. --
Nlu (
talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Also a further comment; analogy to American states is not a bad analogy, but a major difference is that there is a big population disparity. --
Nlu (
talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television shows set in the fictional populated places in the United States
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: I don't see the point of this category. No inclusion criteria, no description of purpose
Geraldo Perez (
talk) 22:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
JDDJS (
talk) 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
CAWylie: don't you mean "merge", then, rather than "delete"? They are different outcomes. –
FayenaticLondon 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Categories cannot be "merged". The articles' categories listed in them must be changed (back). — Wyliepedia 23:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
CAWylie: Right, that's what happens when we tell a bot to merge categories: the members are moved from one category to another, by editing the articles (or sub-cat pages). In contrast, when we program a bot to delete a category, the member articles are edited remove the category altogether, so the only way to trace and put them somewhere else would be by reviewing the bot's contribs (usually
Special:Contributions/Cydebot). –
FayenaticLondon 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-
WP:DEFINING. The fact that their settings aren't real places is not a substantive point of commonality between shows that are set in different fictional places.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reasons I gave at CFD for the Films category pointed out by Fayenatic London above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Latin and Particular churches
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 and reinstate former categorisation. –
FayenaticLondon 01:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Propose deleting and put the contents back in the categories where they were beforeCategory:Latin Church
Keep: Duplicate categorisation may be motivated, but in this case I have a hard time seeing why. Categorisation in the parent category should be enough. Although these two categories in question may use two terms rarely in use in mainstream language, I also have hard time see that disqualify their existance on Wikipedia.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 16:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge back -- We cannot delete, because both main articles will be orphaned.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Religion and law 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_24#Religious_law, at which "Religious law" categories by country were renamed to "Law about religion". Now, we no longer need this extra layer for France, and the US categories can be renamed to match the others. –
FayenaticLondon 13:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Note to closer: "merger" here requires copying the head categories onto the target. –
FayenaticLondon 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- It makes sense. The target is a better description.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by DreamWorks Television
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: DreamWorks along with Amblin Entertainment, are now part of Amblin Partners, DreamWorks TV shows are now marketed under the Amblin Television brand.
47.54.189.22 (
talk) 12:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
OK: We have to do this since Amblin Partners was formed last year. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MSDIS (
talk •
contribs) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Categorize television works by the name of the company that created them. Companies merge, split, rename themselves and lots of other things, but the company that actually created the work will remain intact. This is different than universities, where historically the institution is generally more stable than the name. In this case, the actual name of the creator institution matters and should be preserved in categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose for reasons given by Johnpacklambert.
Trivialist (
talk) 23:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People's Republic of China painters from Beijing
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.
Support All Even as someone with reservations about China=PRC, the articles for each city is just the city name so the corresponding articles don't need a country and I don't think there are so many non-Chinese painters to require a subcategory by nationality.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support all (1) Non-Chinese painters from these provinces (etc.) will be rare; (2) No need to disambiguate, as there are no other places with the name; (3) We decided some time ago that the (Nationalist) Republic of China would be known in WP as Taiwan, so that there is no need to split out PRC; and (4) There is no particular need to distinguish the period of PRC (since c.1948) from earlier periods of Chinese hiostry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - "People's Republic of China" here denotes the period (as opposed to ROC, Qing dynasty, Ming dynasty, etc.), not nationality. Some of the parent categories are already quite large and need to be organized by period, others will become bigger as more articles are created. I'm studying Chinese art history and can easily identify a few hundred missing articles of notable artists that can potentially be added to these categories. Also, the nominator should have had the courtesy to notify the creator
Nlu. -
Zanhe (
talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Before the creation of "a few hundred missing articles", the majority of these parental categories are very small (<10 articles) and further categorizing them is considered
WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Besides, in which other country are painters (or any other profession) categorized by both administrative area and period?
Timmyshin (
talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Which other country is as big as China and has an art history as long? Many Chinese provinces are as big or bigger than major European countries and have art histories at least as long. Chinese painters have been recorded by name since the 3rd century (
Cao Buxing,
Wei Xie (no article yet),
Gu Kaizhi, etc.). Not every period needs to be divided by province (for obvious reasons less art has survived from earlier periods), but more recent ones, especially PRC and Qing, certainly do. -
Zanhe (
talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
No. This has nothing to do with China's size or history but everything to do with policy.
WP:OCLOCATION: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Also see
WP:NARROWCAT.
Timmyshin (
talk) 21:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Chinese provincial boundaries are far more relevant than American state boundaries, which all have their own artist categories, because of more entrenched regionalism in China. Chinese art is commonly divided by regional lines, see
Shanghai School,
Wu School,
Lingnan School,
Anhui School, etc. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Zanhe's argument, which was the rationale for creating them in the first place. (I.e., PRC denotes period, as opposed to ROC or a prior dynasty.) --
Nlu (
talk) 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I might have opposed the proposal if there would have been enough content for a more complete split by period in each city, but since that is not the case it doesn't make sense to have a split for just one single period.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect and
Marcocapelle: There seems to be some confusion here. The categories are not divided by cities, but by provinces (Beijing, Chongqing, and Shanghai are exceptional because they are province-level municipalities). -
Zanhe (
talk) 17:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It does not really change things. There is not enough content for a more complete split by period in each province.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The provinces in most cases have remained with relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes. When we have a case of Hebei with 5 articles between the two categories the split does not make sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Johnpacklambert, this might be true except for the fact that the populations in these Chinese provinces are much larger. Most of them can be fairly large-sized nations by themselves, by population. Also, as to your earlier comment, "relatively the same boundaries through multiple political regimes" doesn't really argue for or against the concept, actually, but isn't quite true anyway (they have had the same boundaries only since the Yuan Dynasty (arguably Song)). --
Nlu (
talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not the size of population that matters, but the amount of articles per period in every of these provinces. As said before, there isn't enough content for a split by the intersection of province and period, while of course it's perfectly fine to categorize by province and by period separately.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People's Republic of China people by occupation
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.
Object to deletion. I also object to merger in some cases. I checked calligraphers and painters, and found them to have subcategories by period. Defining some of these as PRC is distinguishing them as belonging to a recent period, as opposed to the Han or Ming period. I agree to the principle of moving these to "Chinese" categories, but in some cases something in the category name as to their period needs to be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Nonsensical examples. British history is very different from China's. The independence of Ireland for Britain is by no means comparable to the all-encompassing upheavals that typified dynastic changes in China, which is why almost all books about the history of Chinese literature or art are divided by dynastic periods. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Exactly my point. You are the first one to bring up Great Britain in a totally irrelevant analogy.
Timmyshin (
talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
My original analogy is relevant (China's rule of Vietnam vs. Britain's rule of Ireland), but you distorted it by equating Britain's loss of Ireland with China's dynastic changes, which is nonsensical. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Your analogy is nonsensical.
Victorian era is but the reign of one monarch, how can this compare with a dynasty?
Timmyshin (
talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Sigh... I brought up the Victorian era for the very narrow sense that Britain ruled Ireland at the time, in the same way that the Tang dynasty ruled Vietnam, which you said should be excluded from China for that reason. Then you distorted the analogy in all kinds of ridiculous ways to muddle the water. I really don't see any point reasoning with you any further. -
Zanhe (
talk) 22:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep all - "People's Republic of China" is not a one-dimensional concept. It's considered equal to "China" only in the spatial sense, but temporally, it represents only the most recent period of China's long history. In these categories, "People's Republic of China" clearly denotes the period, not the space. -
Zanhe (
talk) 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep all - per Zanhe. --
Nlu (
talk) 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Also a further comment; analogy to American states is not a bad analogy, but a major difference is that there is a big population disparity. --
Nlu (
talk) 02:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.