Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa

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 as per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale The Church is organised as a single diocese in (each of these countries. PanchoS) Will only ever contain a single article. Delete per WP:Smallcat. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — combined eight individual nominations -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Categories/Delete List Articles I'm with PanchoS on this one: these complete a set that is generally well populated. The list articles in these categories are nuts though: I'd be all about an AfD nomination for List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a case of a reasonable exception to the small cat rules. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I thought I was going to vote to merge with an Africa category, but most of the dioceses are named from a city, not the country, so that (unexpectedly) I see some point in their retention. The list articles are clearly. A list that is only ever going to have one item is a complete waste of time. I would suggest that the list articles be converted to redirects to the one article. We do this with articles on peerages in UK that have only ever had one holder, because the holder has no son entitled to inherit, with the result that it became extinct on his death. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 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:Non-governmental organisations operating in Afghanistan

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:Organisations based in Afghanistan. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Category:Non-governmental_organizations_by_country Rathfelder ( talk) 20:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to parent category Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan per the results of the previous discussion. These categories were not simply deleted, they were merged to others. Dimadick ( talk) 09:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- I had expected this to be listing all the aid organisations with operations there, which I would have complained about as being a performance by performer category, but it is not like that at present. My only query is whether all are based in, rather than a neighbouring country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 12 June 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:Bissau-Guinean law

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: no consensus. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people categories, and this cat is a mixture of topics referring both to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau", and particular occupations of people. MSJapan ( talk) 19:27, 4 June 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:Bissau-Guinean society

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: no consensus. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people. The cat content here are overarching general topics referring to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau". MSJapan ( talk) 19:24, 4 June 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:Poverty-related probems

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. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Typo aside, the term "problems" seems inappropriate here - it's POV to describe the activity or existence of dumpster divers, squatters and squeegee men as "problems". Could rename to "Poverty-related issues", but that doesn't seem very different to just "Category:Poverty". McGeddon ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You're suggesting a rename. Perhaps that's an option. However these issues are so complex, I wonder if ever social sciences will establish what is the consequence or cause of what. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:43, 12 June 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:Converts to Sufism

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: double merge, manually checking for each article whether that is indeed appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: One does not convert to Sufism as it is not a sect or denomination of Islam, rather, it is the spiritual dimension. People can embrace Sufi teachings, but they cannot convert to Sufism. This is the rationale provided by Aynalqudat, however, WP:PROD is only valid on articles. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:35, 4 June 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.

Organizations based in Thailand

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. There is no strong national tie one way or the other, but the parent category is "organizations", so the arguments to rename are strong. We really do need a definitive guideline on which countries use which variant, but that's a much larger discussion. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following head category and siblings renamed per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_20#Category:Organisations_based_in_Thailand. Opposed speedy nominations (note: the others below were processed under WP:C2E). – Fayenatic L ondon 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • I am happy to consent. I have better things to do with my time than argue about the spelling of organisation. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think moving these categories sets a bad precedent. The CFD was deeply flawed, it violated the spirit and letter of our policies, and subsequent CFD's have shown more respect for allowing diversity of spelling varieties on the project. We are a global project, not an American one. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a whole other ball of wax, but I think that there is at least a decent argument that could be made that when we are dealing with a country that is non-English speaking and does not otherwise have a close connection or tie to one form of English or another, Oxford spelling should be used. The only reason I say this is that the UN and its specialized bodies have adopted Oxford spelling, and so it may represent a form of English that is familiar in some of these countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Interesting argument, you do make a good point. I have a feeling though that quite a lot of objections would be raised by editors such as Paul012 to moving categories such as Category:National trade union centers of South Korea to Category:National trade union centres of South Korea or Category:Labor in Taiwan to Category:Labour in Taiwan. There's certainly ample opportunity to do that if we decide on Oxford spelling as a default. The question is whether we just leave it up to the creator in the absence of national ties, given that both organisation and organization are understood to mean the same thing. I think the CFD in 2014 was a serious mistake, given that WP:COMMONALITY currently reads "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" and given that WP:RETAIN should have prevented that move. Furthermore, most editors expressed some form of opposition so the close as rename should have been challenged in my view. It didn't create a precedent (which should be established project-wide) as other CFD's of a similar vein have not been successful. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I certainly think that things in practice have gone the way more of RETAIN than of trying to adopt some consistent standard for non-English speaking places. I personally think it would be a good idea to adopt an "international" standard for these cases, but like you I can foresee that there would be pushback. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It's certainly something I would consider supporting as Wikipedia is the sort of publication you could expect to use Oxford spelling as a default (in non-TIES cases). And Oxford spelling combines elements of both "British" and "American" spelling. Just a question, do you know when the now deleted Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created? AusLondonder ( talk) 04:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The original Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created in 2006; I have undeleted the history. Before that it was at Category:Thai organisations which was created in Sept 2005. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
AusLondonder, I don't personally have any issue against non-Oxford British spelling (which I personally use outside of Wikipedia articles), and much less care for categories related to South Korea or Taiwan, of whose English usage patterns I know nothing. My proposed renames have only been in response to prior proposals that attempted to harmonise usage within each country-related category tree (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9). Now supporting that attempt might not have been a great idea, seeing as it's stirring up such a fuss now, but the whole idea is still debatable as both WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR are directed at usage within article text, and don't mention categories at all. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I said: let's seriously consider it. If such a proposal had substantial support and would once for all end this awful territorial marking in both article mainspace and categories, then major but straightforward change might be acceptable, though we'd need a rollout strategy. Alternatively, we might want to start an extensive article on the spelling of English by country, that could then be condensed into an authoritative list of countries predominantly using this or that variant. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, let's at least consistently apply one type of ENGVAR within a country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree but Category:Organisations based in Thailand was stable from 2005. It was moved in a totally flawed way that the admin must explain. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom - PanchoS's suggestion is worth looking into. Neutrality talk 16:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. As I suggested in the speedy discussion, I would support using Oxford spelling as a default when the country does not have ties to any particular form of English. The UN and other international organizations use Oxford spelling, so that creates a type of "tie", weak though it may be, from that country to a form of English. Having a default rule would resolve many issues such as this. I think that this could be applied to category space before we worry about applying it to article space. And I don't think we need to be concerned about how it would affect Color, Movie theater, Self-defense, or Television program, since those are general articles and not tied to any one country in particular. My suggested approach would only apply Oxford spelling to (1) topics that have a tie to a particular country and (2) that country does not have a tie to a particular form of English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and revert other changes. Enough of American cultural imperialism. I do not know which is the culturally appropriate ENGVAR. Whether American (due to the effects of R&R during the Vietnam war) or British (because it is next to Malaysia and near India, which use British orthography). Altering categories to match a global parent is exactly what we should not be doing. Perhaps the Admin needs a lesson in ENGVAR conventions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peterkingiron: Why the assumption that "American imperialism" is behind this? It could just as well be "Oxford spelling imperialism". But why not assume good faith and not presume either? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 13 June 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:Beer and breweries 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: renamed. The majority successfully argued that "beer by country" also includes breweries and is simpler title. Others also noted that the new name would allow separate categorization for breweries, whether it be by subcats or a split. I don't think that question has been fully resolved, so if someone would like to formally propose that in a new discussion, that might be fruitful. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
82 more per-country categories
Nominator's rationale: These categories include beer styles, beer brands, beer culture, beer festivals, yes and brewing companies. Main articles include Beer in Germany, Beer in Belgium, Beer in France, Beer in Canada, or Beer in Australia, to name a few. The proper umbrella term therefore is Category:Beer by country to be further subdivided as necessary. PanchoS ( talk) 13:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • do not change The fact that this category tree includes not only brewing companies but also the physical brewing plants, breweries, means that the current name is the most inclusive and helpful to the reader trying to navigate to the underlying articles--the purpose of categories. Hmains ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, no need to mention subtopics.  Sandstein  17:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The present name covers well the breadth of the subject. Do not forget that a lot of the beer drunk in Russia in the 18th century was brewed in Burton-upon-Trent. Which of the target categories would that be in? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. We don't need to mention the subtopics. The general topic is beer. The suggestion that it could potentially be Category:Beer, brewers, breweries, beer gardens and beer festivals by country makes the point well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. As per WP:CAT, singular category names are topic categories and properly include subcategories and articles related to the topic. "Beer by country" is singular, so it's a topic category. Breweries are related to beer. Therefore, breweries can properly be categorized under "Beer by country". Given that, there's no need for the longer name. ~ Rob Talk 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The categories were created and named in order to bring together numerous separate categories, some of which focused on beer, others of which focused on breweries. Some breweries no longer make beer, so are included in cats such as Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States which is a subcat of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Take "breweries" out of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States, and some may feel that defunct breweries do not belong in a beer cat, and so it gets removed. Others may feel that as the cat no longer specifies "breweries", what would be needed is a cat specifically for Category:Breweries in the United States, so the categorisation of breweries gets separated from beer, and we have two parallel cat systems which contain much crossover - essentially duplicating the categorisation as people may be inclined to put beer brands, such as Heineken, which carry the same name as the brewery, into both the beer and the brewery cat. Care would need to be taken to ensure that the new brewery cat organisation structure would not become separated from the umbrella cat and so make it more difficult for readers to research on a given topic. Under the present name it is clear that both the beer and the breweries go in the umbrella cat, after which they can separate into subcats as appropriate. I'm not sure we could keep all related topics together if we drop the "breweries" word from the name. If I had the time I would link here the discussions the Beer Wikiproject had in creating the Beer and breweries cats so we could revisit the reasoning to see if it is still valid several years down the line. I am not opposing (or supporting) this proposal, but I am not clear on how helpful it would be, while I can see it being problematic. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States is a subcat of Category:Brewing companies of the United States, which would of course remain a subcat of Category:Beer in the United States, as Category:Brewery buildings in the United States or Category:Beer festivals in the United States do. Of course, we have to standardize the per-country-categories within Category:Breweries by country, but that's a minor followup task. -- PanchoS ( talk) 12:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I haven't explained my concern clearly enough. I understand that existing subcats will remain in the renamed cat at the point of renaming. My concern is that someone may be inclined to remove them at a later date because it is not clear why a defunct brewery article should be in a beer cat. The rationale at the time of creating was, same as Category:Food and drink, to bring together two main and related topics under one umbrella term. I am not clear in this proposal why it is felt more helpful to remove the word breweries than it would be to leave it in. The explain is "The proper umbrella term therefore is Category:Beer by country" which is not an explanation, but an assertion. I assume there is a rationale behind this as others have agreed, so that is why I am not opposing. But at this point, having read through the discussion, it is still not clear to me how helpful it is, whereas I am concerned it would require monitoring after the name change to prevent drift toward parallel cat systems which split rather than coming together in an appropriate umbrella. Given that before we created this umbrella cat there were distinct brewery and beer cat systems which did not meet together, I am wondering what is in place now to stop that happening again. I will look for the earlier discussions to see if they might be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Would a user really remove an article about a brewery because they would not understand why a brewery article should be in a beer category? I suppose it depends on how thick users are, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Possibly, because a brewery may not appear logically to belong in a subset of beer. Like Category:Farms and Category:Cattle, while connected, are not a subset of the other, but go up different routes to Category:Agriculture. The more I think of this, the more I think that perhaps Category:Brewing should be the umbrella cat, and that would allow Category:Breweries and Category:Beer to develop separate lines which can come together at Category:Brewing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. OK, I've thought about this, and I see no advantage to the rename, but a potential for beer articles to become categorised along a different route to brewery articles. What I think would be worthwhile, however, is a shuffle of the cat system to make Category:Brewing the umbrella cat above Category:Beer and Category:Breweries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't feel right to have Category:Brewing as the top category. I would expect Category:Beer on top, while I would expect Category:Brewing to focus specifically on the brewing process. Taking that in mind, I support the nominated proposal which would keep Beer on top of each country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:45, 18 July 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:Dairy farming 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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Dairy may refer to the establishment where milk is processed, which isn't strictly part of "dairy farming". "Dairy" is however also used as a synonym of the Dairy industry as a whole, which includes farming, processing, marketing, and the actual products. It is therefore best suited as an umbrella category that may (and often does) include all of these branches.
Note that, as almost all per-country subcategories don't contain a single article on actual dairy farming, I'm proposing a full rename. Given there is enough content, "Dairy farming in foo" subcategories may of course be split off the respective umbrella category. PanchoS ( talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose - in my type of education, and Engvar region, I have never heard of dairy operations, farming or production called just dairy - if you dont like 'farming' per se, why not dairy production or industry JarrahTree 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
comment regardless of the 'proof' of the links provided, I still think for a category here on wikipedia it would be better to have a qualifier, I would say 'dairy industry' is more amenable to common understanding and approachable than the singular 'dairy' JarrahTree 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
From an economic, Western-focussed point of view I would agree with "dairy industry" being a good term, but from a cultural, historical or food consumption perspective, it's not – perspectives that prevail in the Global South much more than in the Western world where we're tending to industrialize everything. But let others weigh in. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I dont think the naming of a category needs to carry (or not) the load of the curse of the western world - lets hope others do, (anthropologically speaking from my fieldwork experience in south east asia I would have elicited complete and utter blank looks as to what the hell the word meant, unless I used the word milk...) JarrahTree 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose Not a common term outside the US. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
comment According to JarrahTree above "Dairy" will make many south east asians have a blank look, and it is also weird for at least one portuguese guy (that is, me). My usual online english dictionary completely failed me this time: " S: (n) dairy, dairy farm (a farm where dairy products are produced)". So, Can we get something with milk on the name? milk industry? milk production? milk products?... none sounds great, I know... but dairy sounds even worse, to me - Nabla ( talk) 11:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Dairy farming means keeping cows for milk. A dairy is the place where milk is processed to make it ready for sale. These are different things, though both aspects of the same process. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 12 June 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:South Korean television miniseries

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: redirect after the category had already been emptied before closure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most Korean dramas are in miniseries format. This category is redundant with Category:South Korean drama television series. Random86 ( talk) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Then redirect rather than delete, as this category name is liable to be used again. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:03, 4 June 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:Inspirational television series

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. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems very unclear and subjective. What is the criteria for inclusion in this category? Random86 ( talk) 07:02, 4 June 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:Non-governmental organization stubs

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: relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 07:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main category has been deleted Rathfelder ( talk) 07:00, 4 June 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:Security issues

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/rename as nominated. The AFD resulted in the articles being renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
This relates to the merge proposal only. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: True, but deleting only the parent categories would create orphan categories. Please nominate all of them, and I will support your nomination. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could you please explain more precisely how you would like me to revise the nomination? (Btw please note that I've proposed a merge, not a delete, so there won't be any orphans.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Ah okay, I'll add those for the sake of consistent naming. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 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.

Years 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: delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
More year categories
Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:C1, as the only content are subcategories of single state (dis)establishments that are not about international relations. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Actually SMALLCAT plays a role here, indirectly. If, hypothetically, there would have been a large number of treaties and battles in every year category of international relations, nobody would have bothered that the state (dis)establishments have crept in these international relations categories as well. But it's overcategorization to have so many international relations year categories just for the sake of hosting the state (dis)establishments. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I thought the issue was the (dis)establishments categories themselves. If not, then I support upmerger for each category to the century category. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The direct issue is the (dis)establishment categories. As said, SMALLCAT plays an indirect role. Because of the latter, I would also be fine with an upmerge as you proposed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In principle, Support -- I would however have preferred to see up deal first with the (dis)establishment categories that are the sole content, by merging them into century categories. This would leave these empty, and they would be deleted as a matter of course. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 12 June 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:Populist parties in the Czech Republic

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. There's no consensus to upmerge and get rid of this category entirely, but there's no opposition to renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Bringing these ones in line with Category:Populism in the United States.
While the implicit inclusion criteria for political parties as being "populist" were found both too subjective and too unspecific in a previous CfD consensus, where I had nominated the subsequently deleted Category:Populist parties in the United States. A categorization under the political concept of Populism, allowing more specific subcategories to define useful inclusion criteria, however seems perfectly acceptable. PanchoS ( talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion should focus on choosing between renaming vs. upmerging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 03:55, 4 June 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:American music history by year

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 per nom. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with parent category Category:Years in music, all child categories, and similar categories such as: Category:Years in Canadian music, Category:Years in British politics, Category:Years in American cinema, Category:Years in Japanese television. PanchoS ( talk) 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Agree: if they are all changed, including Australia (below) Hugo999 ( talk) 01:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment thanks Hugo for pointing the omission of Australia JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 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:Recipients of the Military Cross (Belgium)

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
The Military Cross (Belgium) is automatically given for 25 years of service in the Belgian military. According to the article, the award was established in 1885 and about 300 are currently issued every year so this award is not rare. A years of service award doesn't seem defining and there is no master list of recipients, making it hard to verify individual membership in this category. I complete list is not possible but I made sure all the contents of this category are here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Belgium. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- Green C 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This award is non-defining to those who were awarded it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just a long service award. We don't have categories for those. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 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:Scottish Science Hall of Fame

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
In 2005, the National Library of Scotland held on online poll on their web site to select the top 10 most popular deceased Scottish scientists of all time ( source). We have no article on this award, just a redirect that points to that library article which makes no mention of the award. James Watt died 1819 and Alexander Graham Bell 1922: it's hard to see how either is defined by a web site celebrating them in 2005. I listed the current contents of the category here on the talk page in case someone thinks they can overcome WP:N to create a list article. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Mais oui! as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Scotland. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- Green C 01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Most halls of fame categories are OCAWARD categories. If there is a physical hall, with statues, pictures, memorabilia, etc (i.e. a museum), there may be some merit in such a category, but anyone could set up an Internet site virtual hall. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 12 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_4&oldid=1084319297"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa

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 as per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale The Church is organised as a single diocese in (each of these countries. PanchoS) Will only ever contain a single article. Delete per WP:Smallcat. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — combined eight individual nominations -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Categories/Delete List Articles I'm with PanchoS on this one: these complete a set that is generally well populated. The list articles in these categories are nuts though: I'd be all about an AfD nomination for List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a case of a reasonable exception to the small cat rules. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I thought I was going to vote to merge with an Africa category, but most of the dioceses are named from a city, not the country, so that (unexpectedly) I see some point in their retention. The list articles are clearly. A list that is only ever going to have one item is a complete waste of time. I would suggest that the list articles be converted to redirects to the one article. We do this with articles on peerages in UK that have only ever had one holder, because the holder has no son entitled to inherit, with the result that it became extinct on his death. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 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:Non-governmental organisations operating in Afghanistan

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:Organisations based in Afghanistan. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In line with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5#Category:Non-governmental_organizations_by_country Rathfelder ( talk) 20:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to parent category Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan per the results of the previous discussion. These categories were not simply deleted, they were merged to others. Dimadick ( talk) 09:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- I had expected this to be listing all the aid organisations with operations there, which I would have complained about as being a performance by performer category, but it is not like that at present. My only query is whether all are based in, rather than a neighbouring country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:48, 12 June 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:Bissau-Guinean law

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: no consensus. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people categories, and this cat is a mixture of topics referring both to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau", and particular occupations of people. MSJapan ( talk) 19:27, 4 June 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:Bissau-Guinean society

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: no consensus. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people. The cat content here are overarching general topics referring to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau". MSJapan ( talk) 19:24, 4 June 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:Poverty-related probems

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. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Typo aside, the term "problems" seems inappropriate here - it's POV to describe the activity or existence of dumpster divers, squatters and squeegee men as "problems". Could rename to "Poverty-related issues", but that doesn't seem very different to just "Category:Poverty". McGeddon ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You're suggesting a rename. Perhaps that's an option. However these issues are so complex, I wonder if ever social sciences will establish what is the consequence or cause of what. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:43, 12 June 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:Converts to Sufism

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: double merge, manually checking for each article whether that is indeed appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: One does not convert to Sufism as it is not a sect or denomination of Islam, rather, it is the spiritual dimension. People can embrace Sufi teachings, but they cannot convert to Sufism. This is the rationale provided by Aynalqudat, however, WP:PROD is only valid on articles. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:35, 4 June 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.

Organizations based in Thailand

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. There is no strong national tie one way or the other, but the parent category is "organizations", so the arguments to rename are strong. We really do need a definitive guideline on which countries use which variant, but that's a much larger discussion. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following head category and siblings renamed per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_20#Category:Organisations_based_in_Thailand. Opposed speedy nominations (note: the others below were processed under WP:C2E). – Fayenatic L ondon 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • I am happy to consent. I have better things to do with my time than argue about the spelling of organisation. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think moving these categories sets a bad precedent. The CFD was deeply flawed, it violated the spirit and letter of our policies, and subsequent CFD's have shown more respect for allowing diversity of spelling varieties on the project. We are a global project, not an American one. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a whole other ball of wax, but I think that there is at least a decent argument that could be made that when we are dealing with a country that is non-English speaking and does not otherwise have a close connection or tie to one form of English or another, Oxford spelling should be used. The only reason I say this is that the UN and its specialized bodies have adopted Oxford spelling, and so it may represent a form of English that is familiar in some of these countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Interesting argument, you do make a good point. I have a feeling though that quite a lot of objections would be raised by editors such as Paul012 to moving categories such as Category:National trade union centers of South Korea to Category:National trade union centres of South Korea or Category:Labor in Taiwan to Category:Labour in Taiwan. There's certainly ample opportunity to do that if we decide on Oxford spelling as a default. The question is whether we just leave it up to the creator in the absence of national ties, given that both organisation and organization are understood to mean the same thing. I think the CFD in 2014 was a serious mistake, given that WP:COMMONALITY currently reads "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" and given that WP:RETAIN should have prevented that move. Furthermore, most editors expressed some form of opposition so the close as rename should have been challenged in my view. It didn't create a precedent (which should be established project-wide) as other CFD's of a similar vein have not been successful. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, I certainly think that things in practice have gone the way more of RETAIN than of trying to adopt some consistent standard for non-English speaking places. I personally think it would be a good idea to adopt an "international" standard for these cases, but like you I can foresee that there would be pushback. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It's certainly something I would consider supporting as Wikipedia is the sort of publication you could expect to use Oxford spelling as a default (in non-TIES cases). And Oxford spelling combines elements of both "British" and "American" spelling. Just a question, do you know when the now deleted Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created? AusLondonder ( talk) 04:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The original Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created in 2006; I have undeleted the history. Before that it was at Category:Thai organisations which was created in Sept 2005. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
AusLondonder, I don't personally have any issue against non-Oxford British spelling (which I personally use outside of Wikipedia articles), and much less care for categories related to South Korea or Taiwan, of whose English usage patterns I know nothing. My proposed renames have only been in response to prior proposals that attempted to harmonise usage within each country-related category tree (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9). Now supporting that attempt might not have been a great idea, seeing as it's stirring up such a fuss now, but the whole idea is still debatable as both WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR are directed at usage within article text, and don't mention categories at all. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I said: let's seriously consider it. If such a proposal had substantial support and would once for all end this awful territorial marking in both article mainspace and categories, then major but straightforward change might be acceptable, though we'd need a rollout strategy. Alternatively, we might want to start an extensive article on the spelling of English by country, that could then be condensed into an authoritative list of countries predominantly using this or that variant. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, let's at least consistently apply one type of ENGVAR within a country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree but Category:Organisations based in Thailand was stable from 2005. It was moved in a totally flawed way that the admin must explain. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom - PanchoS's suggestion is worth looking into. Neutrality talk 16:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. As I suggested in the speedy discussion, I would support using Oxford spelling as a default when the country does not have ties to any particular form of English. The UN and other international organizations use Oxford spelling, so that creates a type of "tie", weak though it may be, from that country to a form of English. Having a default rule would resolve many issues such as this. I think that this could be applied to category space before we worry about applying it to article space. And I don't think we need to be concerned about how it would affect Color, Movie theater, Self-defense, or Television program, since those are general articles and not tied to any one country in particular. My suggested approach would only apply Oxford spelling to (1) topics that have a tie to a particular country and (2) that country does not have a tie to a particular form of English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and revert other changes. Enough of American cultural imperialism. I do not know which is the culturally appropriate ENGVAR. Whether American (due to the effects of R&R during the Vietnam war) or British (because it is next to Malaysia and near India, which use British orthography). Altering categories to match a global parent is exactly what we should not be doing. Perhaps the Admin needs a lesson in ENGVAR conventions. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peterkingiron: Why the assumption that "American imperialism" is behind this? It could just as well be "Oxford spelling imperialism". But why not assume good faith and not presume either? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 13 June 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:Beer and breweries 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: renamed. The majority successfully argued that "beer by country" also includes breweries and is simpler title. Others also noted that the new name would allow separate categorization for breweries, whether it be by subcats or a split. I don't think that question has been fully resolved, so if someone would like to formally propose that in a new discussion, that might be fruitful. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
82 more per-country categories
Nominator's rationale: These categories include beer styles, beer brands, beer culture, beer festivals, yes and brewing companies. Main articles include Beer in Germany, Beer in Belgium, Beer in France, Beer in Canada, or Beer in Australia, to name a few. The proper umbrella term therefore is Category:Beer by country to be further subdivided as necessary. PanchoS ( talk) 13:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • do not change The fact that this category tree includes not only brewing companies but also the physical brewing plants, breweries, means that the current name is the most inclusive and helpful to the reader trying to navigate to the underlying articles--the purpose of categories. Hmains ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, no need to mention subtopics.  Sandstein  17:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- The present name covers well the breadth of the subject. Do not forget that a lot of the beer drunk in Russia in the 18th century was brewed in Burton-upon-Trent. Which of the target categories would that be in? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. We don't need to mention the subtopics. The general topic is beer. The suggestion that it could potentially be Category:Beer, brewers, breweries, beer gardens and beer festivals by country makes the point well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. As per WP:CAT, singular category names are topic categories and properly include subcategories and articles related to the topic. "Beer by country" is singular, so it's a topic category. Breweries are related to beer. Therefore, breweries can properly be categorized under "Beer by country". Given that, there's no need for the longer name. ~ Rob Talk 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The categories were created and named in order to bring together numerous separate categories, some of which focused on beer, others of which focused on breweries. Some breweries no longer make beer, so are included in cats such as Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States which is a subcat of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Take "breweries" out of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States, and some may feel that defunct breweries do not belong in a beer cat, and so it gets removed. Others may feel that as the cat no longer specifies "breweries", what would be needed is a cat specifically for Category:Breweries in the United States, so the categorisation of breweries gets separated from beer, and we have two parallel cat systems which contain much crossover - essentially duplicating the categorisation as people may be inclined to put beer brands, such as Heineken, which carry the same name as the brewery, into both the beer and the brewery cat. Care would need to be taken to ensure that the new brewery cat organisation structure would not become separated from the umbrella cat and so make it more difficult for readers to research on a given topic. Under the present name it is clear that both the beer and the breweries go in the umbrella cat, after which they can separate into subcats as appropriate. I'm not sure we could keep all related topics together if we drop the "breweries" word from the name. If I had the time I would link here the discussions the Beer Wikiproject had in creating the Beer and breweries cats so we could revisit the reasoning to see if it is still valid several years down the line. I am not opposing (or supporting) this proposal, but I am not clear on how helpful it would be, while I can see it being problematic. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States is a subcat of Category:Brewing companies of the United States, which would of course remain a subcat of Category:Beer in the United States, as Category:Brewery buildings in the United States or Category:Beer festivals in the United States do. Of course, we have to standardize the per-country-categories within Category:Breweries by country, but that's a minor followup task. -- PanchoS ( talk) 12:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I haven't explained my concern clearly enough. I understand that existing subcats will remain in the renamed cat at the point of renaming. My concern is that someone may be inclined to remove them at a later date because it is not clear why a defunct brewery article should be in a beer cat. The rationale at the time of creating was, same as Category:Food and drink, to bring together two main and related topics under one umbrella term. I am not clear in this proposal why it is felt more helpful to remove the word breweries than it would be to leave it in. The explain is "The proper umbrella term therefore is Category:Beer by country" which is not an explanation, but an assertion. I assume there is a rationale behind this as others have agreed, so that is why I am not opposing. But at this point, having read through the discussion, it is still not clear to me how helpful it is, whereas I am concerned it would require monitoring after the name change to prevent drift toward parallel cat systems which split rather than coming together in an appropriate umbrella. Given that before we created this umbrella cat there were distinct brewery and beer cat systems which did not meet together, I am wondering what is in place now to stop that happening again. I will look for the earlier discussions to see if they might be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Would a user really remove an article about a brewery because they would not understand why a brewery article should be in a beer category? I suppose it depends on how thick users are, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Possibly, because a brewery may not appear logically to belong in a subset of beer. Like Category:Farms and Category:Cattle, while connected, are not a subset of the other, but go up different routes to Category:Agriculture. The more I think of this, the more I think that perhaps Category:Brewing should be the umbrella cat, and that would allow Category:Breweries and Category:Beer to develop separate lines which can come together at Category:Brewing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. OK, I've thought about this, and I see no advantage to the rename, but a potential for beer articles to become categorised along a different route to brewery articles. What I think would be worthwhile, however, is a shuffle of the cat system to make Category:Brewing the umbrella cat above Category:Beer and Category:Breweries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't feel right to have Category:Brewing as the top category. I would expect Category:Beer on top, while I would expect Category:Brewing to focus specifically on the brewing process. Taking that in mind, I support the nominated proposal which would keep Beer on top of each country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:45, 18 July 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:Dairy farming 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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Dairy may refer to the establishment where milk is processed, which isn't strictly part of "dairy farming". "Dairy" is however also used as a synonym of the Dairy industry as a whole, which includes farming, processing, marketing, and the actual products. It is therefore best suited as an umbrella category that may (and often does) include all of these branches.
Note that, as almost all per-country subcategories don't contain a single article on actual dairy farming, I'm proposing a full rename. Given there is enough content, "Dairy farming in foo" subcategories may of course be split off the respective umbrella category. PanchoS ( talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose - in my type of education, and Engvar region, I have never heard of dairy operations, farming or production called just dairy - if you dont like 'farming' per se, why not dairy production or industry JarrahTree 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
comment regardless of the 'proof' of the links provided, I still think for a category here on wikipedia it would be better to have a qualifier, I would say 'dairy industry' is more amenable to common understanding and approachable than the singular 'dairy' JarrahTree 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
From an economic, Western-focussed point of view I would agree with "dairy industry" being a good term, but from a cultural, historical or food consumption perspective, it's not – perspectives that prevail in the Global South much more than in the Western world where we're tending to industrialize everything. But let others weigh in. -- PanchoS ( talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I dont think the naming of a category needs to carry (or not) the load of the curse of the western world - lets hope others do, (anthropologically speaking from my fieldwork experience in south east asia I would have elicited complete and utter blank looks as to what the hell the word meant, unless I used the word milk...) JarrahTree 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose Not a common term outside the US. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
comment According to JarrahTree above "Dairy" will make many south east asians have a blank look, and it is also weird for at least one portuguese guy (that is, me). My usual online english dictionary completely failed me this time: " S: (n) dairy, dairy farm (a farm where dairy products are produced)". So, Can we get something with milk on the name? milk industry? milk production? milk products?... none sounds great, I know... but dairy sounds even worse, to me - Nabla ( talk) 11:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Dairy farming means keeping cows for milk. A dairy is the place where milk is processed to make it ready for sale. These are different things, though both aspects of the same process. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:07, 12 June 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:South Korean television miniseries

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: redirect after the category had already been emptied before closure. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most Korean dramas are in miniseries format. This category is redundant with Category:South Korean drama television series. Random86 ( talk) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Then redirect rather than delete, as this category name is liable to be used again. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:03, 4 June 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:Inspirational television series

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. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems very unclear and subjective. What is the criteria for inclusion in this category? Random86 ( talk) 07:02, 4 June 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:Non-governmental organization stubs

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: relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 07:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The main category has been deleted Rathfelder ( talk) 07:00, 4 June 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:Security issues

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/rename as nominated. The AFD resulted in the articles being renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
This relates to the merge proposal only. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: True, but deleting only the parent categories would create orphan categories. Please nominate all of them, and I will support your nomination. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could you please explain more precisely how you would like me to revise the nomination? (Btw please note that I've proposed a merge, not a delete, so there won't be any orphans.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Ah okay, I'll add those for the sake of consistent naming. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 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.

Years 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: delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
More year categories
Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:C1, as the only content are subcategories of single state (dis)establishments that are not about international relations. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Actually SMALLCAT plays a role here, indirectly. If, hypothetically, there would have been a large number of treaties and battles in every year category of international relations, nobody would have bothered that the state (dis)establishments have crept in these international relations categories as well. But it's overcategorization to have so many international relations year categories just for the sake of hosting the state (dis)establishments. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I thought the issue was the (dis)establishments categories themselves. If not, then I support upmerger for each category to the century category. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The direct issue is the (dis)establishment categories. As said, SMALLCAT plays an indirect role. Because of the latter, I would also be fine with an upmerge as you proposed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In principle, Support -- I would however have preferred to see up deal first with the (dis)establishment categories that are the sole content, by merging them into century categories. This would leave these empty, and they would be deleted as a matter of course. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 12 June 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:Populist parties in the Czech Republic

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. There's no consensus to upmerge and get rid of this category entirely, but there's no opposition to renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Bringing these ones in line with Category:Populism in the United States.
While the implicit inclusion criteria for political parties as being "populist" were found both too subjective and too unspecific in a previous CfD consensus, where I had nominated the subsequently deleted Category:Populist parties in the United States. A categorization under the political concept of Populism, allowing more specific subcategories to define useful inclusion criteria, however seems perfectly acceptable. PanchoS ( talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion should focus on choosing between renaming vs. upmerging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 03:55, 4 June 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:American music history by year

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 per nom. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per consistency with parent category Category:Years in music, all child categories, and similar categories such as: Category:Years in Canadian music, Category:Years in British politics, Category:Years in American cinema, Category:Years in Japanese television. PanchoS ( talk) 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Agree: if they are all changed, including Australia (below) Hugo999 ( talk) 01:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment thanks Hugo for pointing the omission of Australia JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 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:Recipients of the Military Cross (Belgium)

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
The Military Cross (Belgium) is automatically given for 25 years of service in the Belgian military. According to the article, the award was established in 1885 and about 300 are currently issued every year so this award is not rare. A years of service award doesn't seem defining and there is no master list of recipients, making it hard to verify individual membership in this category. I complete list is not possible but I made sure all the contents of this category are here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Belgium. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- Green C 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This award is non-defining to those who were awarded it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just a long service award. We don't have categories for those. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 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:Scottish Science Hall of Fame

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
In 2005, the National Library of Scotland held on online poll on their web site to select the top 10 most popular deceased Scottish scientists of all time ( source). We have no article on this award, just a redirect that points to that library article which makes no mention of the award. James Watt died 1819 and Alexander Graham Bell 1922: it's hard to see how either is defined by a web site celebrating them in 2005. I listed the current contents of the category here on the talk page in case someone thinks they can overcome WP:N to create a list article. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Mais oui! as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Scotland. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- Green C 01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Most halls of fame categories are OCAWARD categories. If there is a physical hall, with statues, pictures, memorabilia, etc (i.e. a museum), there may be some merit in such a category, but anyone could set up an Internet site virtual hall. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:23, 12 June 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_4&oldid=1084319297"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE