August 13
Australian societies
- 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 "Society in FOO". The Vic discussion along with the desire for consistency makes this the clear choice. I'll also apply this consensus to all Australian states and territories. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The below "Australian societies" discussions have been relisted mostly to elicit more discussion about the Victorian case, which is unusual and requires more attention. Once we figure out that case, it will likely help inform what we should do in the other cases, as consistency in a closely related categorization scheme is a strong rationale. (These should be closed together, obviously.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The below "Australian societies" discussions have been relisted mostly to elicit more discussion about the Victorian case, which is unusual and requires more attention. Once we figure out that case, it will likely help inform what we should do in the other cases, as consistency in a closely related categorization scheme is a strong rationale. (These should be closed together, obviously.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Victoria (Australia) society
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania and other states with 'a' final letter JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer second as Victorian also refers to a historical period; the first format is clumsy. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the observation - good point JarrahTree 01:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Society of Victoria (Australia) per unambiguity, consistency with
Society of Macau and Society of Georgia (country), and to avoid clumsy interruption by a disambiguator. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC) - The latter; see my comment in the Tasmania section. Nyttend ( talk) 14:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:South Australia society
- Propose renaming Category:South Australia society to Category:South Australian society or Category:Society in South Australia
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:South Australian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Western Australia society
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania - lack of possessive 'n' renders meaning not usual usage JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Western Australian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Tasmania society
- Propose renaming Category:Tasmania society to Category:Tasmanian society or Category:Society in Tasmania
- Nominator's rationale: Tasmania society is not current usage (Tasmania'n' would have been ok) - the parent cat specifically incorporated the possessive 'n' (Australia'n') - if Australian can be used, states ending in 'a' should have the same for consistency of usage
- another editor currently doing a lot of Tasmanian editing suggests Society in Tasmania - noting that other states of Australia with 'a' final letters, with lack of possessive 'n' requires changing as it is not correct usage JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. When I created these, I patterned them after the subcategories of Category:Society of the United States by state and Category:Canadian society by province or territory, which just use "NAME-OF-PLACE society", without amending the name. Eg, Category:Pennsylvania society rather than Category:Pennsylvanian society and Category:British Columbia society rather than Category:British Columbian society. But I've no objection to changing the format for the Australian ones if something else is preferred, as long as redirects are kept. We do also have Category:New South Wales society, Category:Australian Capital Territory society, Category:Northern Territory society, and Category:Queensland society, which have no FOOian form that could be adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support first option. The use of a demonym works well (except Victoria), but the second would also do. I do not like applying the US practice to another country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a "US practice". As noted, when I created them I simply used the same format that was used for the US and Canada. Absent WP:ENGVAR issues, there is not a lot of justification for changing a format solely to be different than how the US one is named! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support all the above in the format Society in FOO as opposed to FOOian society on the basis that
Category:Australian Capital Territory society,
Category:New South Wales society,
Category:Norfolk Island society,
Category:Northern Territory society, and
Category:Queensland society follow the same format of Society in FOO.
Rangasyd (
talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @
Rangasyd: those categories you listed do not follow the "Society in FOO" format. Did you mean to say "on condition that" rather than "on the basis that"?
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ Good Olfactory: yes, "on condition that" the aforementioned categories follow the same format of Society in FOO. Rangasyd ( talk) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @
Rangasyd: those categories you listed do not follow the "Society in FOO" format. Did you mean to say "on condition that" rather than "on the basis that"?
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, generally prefer the second option, and besides the second option has the additional advantage of avoiding the Victorian problem that Peterkingiron mentioned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Tasmanian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to "society in STATE" because it flows naturally, and it avoids the issue with Victoria. We ought to campaign to have Georgia, Victoria, and Washington renamed; it would make things so much easier here on Wikipedia :-) Nyttend ( talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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 associated with the sex industry
- 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 all; remove
Category:Sex industry researchers and activists from category tree.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 08:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the sex industry to Category:People in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the sex industry by nationality to Category:People in the sex industry by nationality
- Propose renaming Category:American people associated with the sex industry to Category:American people in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:Australian people associated with the sex industry to Category:Australian people in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:British people associated with the sex industry to Category:British people in the sex industry
- Nominator's rationale: rename to avoid the word "associated" which one would easily associate with WP:OCASSOC. The format of the proposed rename is similar to e.g. Category:People in international development. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree per nom; but Category:Sex industry researchers and activists should be removed from the tree, as these folks aren't necessarily "in" the industry - some are researchers or critics from outside. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree on the latter, they may be moved up to Category:Sex industry. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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:63 in international relations
- 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 all.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 05:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:63 in international relations into Category:63 in politics
- Propose merging Category:562 in international relations into Category:562 in politics
- Propose merging Category:638 treaties into Category:638 in politics and Category:7th-century treaties
- Propose merging Category:638 in international relations into Category:638 in politics and Category:7th-century treaties
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 654 into Category:654 in politics and Category:7th-century conflicts
- Propose merging Category:654 in international relations into Category:654 in politics and Category:7th-century conflicts
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and highly unlikely there will be more articles about treaties or conflicts in each of these particular years. No need to merge the first two nominated categories to their other parent category because the article is already in the century treaties category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge Annual categories at remote periods are a menace. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - actually those years are well documented in some civilizations, so not necessarily those "highly unlikely" to be populated. I'm neutral anyways on this. GreyShark ( dibra) 21:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge all to the category for the year. I do not think any subdivion of these categories are justified with our current content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
August 13
Australian societies
- 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 "Society in FOO". The Vic discussion along with the desire for consistency makes this the clear choice. I'll also apply this consensus to all Australian states and territories. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The below "Australian societies" discussions have been relisted mostly to elicit more discussion about the Victorian case, which is unusual and requires more attention. Once we figure out that case, it will likely help inform what we should do in the other cases, as consistency in a closely related categorization scheme is a strong rationale. (These should be closed together, obviously.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The below "Australian societies" discussions have been relisted mostly to elicit more discussion about the Victorian case, which is unusual and requires more attention. Once we figure out that case, it will likely help inform what we should do in the other cases, as consistency in a closely related categorization scheme is a strong rationale. (These should be closed together, obviously.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13 Talk 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Victoria (Australia) society
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania and other states with 'a' final letter JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer second as Victorian also refers to a historical period; the first format is clumsy. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the observation - good point JarrahTree 01:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Society of Victoria (Australia) per unambiguity, consistency with
Society of Macau and Society of Georgia (country), and to avoid clumsy interruption by a disambiguator. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC) - The latter; see my comment in the Tasmania section. Nyttend ( talk) 14:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:South Australia society
- Propose renaming Category:South Australia society to Category:South Australian society or Category:Society in South Australia
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:South Australian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Western Australia society
- Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania - lack of possessive 'n' renders meaning not usual usage JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Western Australian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Tasmania society
- Propose renaming Category:Tasmania society to Category:Tasmanian society or Category:Society in Tasmania
- Nominator's rationale: Tasmania society is not current usage (Tasmania'n' would have been ok) - the parent cat specifically incorporated the possessive 'n' (Australia'n') - if Australian can be used, states ending in 'a' should have the same for consistency of usage
- another editor currently doing a lot of Tasmanian editing suggests Society in Tasmania - noting that other states of Australia with 'a' final letters, with lack of possessive 'n' requires changing as it is not correct usage JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. When I created these, I patterned them after the subcategories of Category:Society of the United States by state and Category:Canadian society by province or territory, which just use "NAME-OF-PLACE society", without amending the name. Eg, Category:Pennsylvania society rather than Category:Pennsylvanian society and Category:British Columbia society rather than Category:British Columbian society. But I've no objection to changing the format for the Australian ones if something else is preferred, as long as redirects are kept. We do also have Category:New South Wales society, Category:Australian Capital Territory society, Category:Northern Territory society, and Category:Queensland society, which have no FOOian form that could be adopted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support first option. The use of a demonym works well (except Victoria), but the second would also do. I do not like applying the US practice to another country.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is not a "US practice". As noted, when I created them I simply used the same format that was used for the US and Canada. Absent WP:ENGVAR issues, there is not a lot of justification for changing a format solely to be different than how the US one is named! Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support all the above in the format Society in FOO as opposed to FOOian society on the basis that
Category:Australian Capital Territory society,
Category:New South Wales society,
Category:Norfolk Island society,
Category:Northern Territory society, and
Category:Queensland society follow the same format of Society in FOO.
Rangasyd (
talk) 10:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @
Rangasyd: those categories you listed do not follow the "Society in FOO" format. Did you mean to say "on condition that" rather than "on the basis that"?
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ Good Olfactory: yes, "on condition that" the aforementioned categories follow the same format of Society in FOO. Rangasyd ( talk) 12:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @
Rangasyd: those categories you listed do not follow the "Society in FOO" format. Did you mean to say "on condition that" rather than "on the basis that"?
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, generally prefer the second option, and besides the second option has the additional advantage of avoiding the Victorian problem that Peterkingiron mentioned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Tasmanian society per both consistency and natural language. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to "society in STATE" because it flows naturally, and it avoids the issue with Victoria. We ought to campaign to have Georgia, Victoria, and Washington renamed; it would make things so much easier here on Wikipedia :-) Nyttend ( talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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 associated with the sex industry
- 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 all; remove
Category:Sex industry researchers and activists from category tree.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 08:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the sex industry to Category:People in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the sex industry by nationality to Category:People in the sex industry by nationality
- Propose renaming Category:American people associated with the sex industry to Category:American people in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:Australian people associated with the sex industry to Category:Australian people in the sex industry
- Propose renaming Category:British people associated with the sex industry to Category:British people in the sex industry
- Nominator's rationale: rename to avoid the word "associated" which one would easily associate with WP:OCASSOC. The format of the proposed rename is similar to e.g. Category:People in international development. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree per nom; but Category:Sex industry researchers and activists should be removed from the tree, as these folks aren't necessarily "in" the industry - some are researchers or critics from outside. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree on the latter, they may be moved up to Category:Sex industry. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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:63 in international relations
- 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 all.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 05:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:63 in international relations into Category:63 in politics
- Propose merging Category:562 in international relations into Category:562 in politics
- Propose merging Category:638 treaties into Category:638 in politics and Category:7th-century treaties
- Propose merging Category:638 in international relations into Category:638 in politics and Category:7th-century treaties
- Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 654 into Category:654 in politics and Category:7th-century conflicts
- Propose merging Category:654 in international relations into Category:654 in politics and Category:7th-century conflicts
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and highly unlikely there will be more articles about treaties or conflicts in each of these particular years. No need to merge the first two nominated categories to their other parent category because the article is already in the century treaties category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Merge Annual categories at remote periods are a menace. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - actually those years are well documented in some civilizations, so not necessarily those "highly unlikely" to be populated. I'm neutral anyways on this. GreyShark ( dibra) 21:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge all to the category for the year. I do not think any subdivion of these categories are justified with our current content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.