The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To match both the parent category and documentary film subcat. The reason I didn't take this to
WP:CFDS is I see that that another editor applied to a Cfd tag toCategory:Documentary films about health care but didn't know how to actually create the Cfd, it seems. And looking at the edit history -- something about "promoting minority styling," whatever that means -- this is clearly not unopposed. Tho the rename seems to me to be obvious per X of Y.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
No, it was never tagged for that discussion in November.
User:Kashmiri then made an out-of-process move in December, with the justification "Spelling much more common on Wikipedia". CFD tags were added by
user:Rathfelder on 16 January 2016,
[1] but he did not start a discussion. I suggest a procedural speedy revert to "health care" after the out-of-process move. –
FayenaticLondon16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
From previous discussions I have concluded that it is pointless to try to standardise either way. Both "Healthcare" and "Health care" are in common use, with no distinction, and often in the same paragraph.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:C2C and
WP:C2D would differ with you there. When you have a main article, parent category and sub-category all aligned one way, it seems arbitrary and rather pointless to me to have a nested mid-level category spelled a different way. But clearly you disagree.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
There are many main articles and categories in healthcare. Some use one, some the other. This doesn't appear to relate to geography, language or any other variable I can identify. [[WP:C2D] "applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". That is not the case here.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaking of the regional thing -- and I don't wish to be labour this -- but I notice Rathfelder that you are a member of
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, "whose main goal is to organise and bring clarity to the vast number of articles on Wikipedia related to the United Kingdom's National Health Service," whose
WP:LEAD begins: "Each of the four countries of the United Kingdom has a publicly funded health care system" -- note the spelling. So if I understand correctly, not only haven't you addressed the main article
Health care, you haven't even managed (or even tried?) to get the UK article to reflect your preference, though you worked on it as recently as Feb. 2. You're attempting to use the category system to address a personal preference that you don't seem to have tried to implement in the most basic way at the article level, even in your own Wikiproject. Or perhaps you did, and it was rejected by other editors? I did see that back in December -- at the time you attempted this out-of-process move -- you did change the lead to
Publicly funded health care, to reflect your preference, with the edit summary "There is a plan to make usage more consistent across the encyclopedia - including renaming this article." Yet the plan is yours, unilaterally. For example you moved
Single-payer healthcare to its new name in December with no discussion whatsoever. I think WP:Trout most definitely applies here, for the way you've gone about this.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
12:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I concluded that this was probably a futile exercise, and my efforts, unsatisfactory though they were, to raise discussion, got little reaction. It is certainly clear that in the world at large there is no consistent usage. So, see for example
Category:Health care which goes on to talk about "articles on the health sciences and healthcare profession..." But if there is any interest in the idea I am more interested in changing the categories than the articles, because the single word helps in locating relevant categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:25, 31 March 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:Led Zeppelin album track list templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Regional dishes of the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - as I argued last time, some people use categories to find info, some prefer to use lists. I think we should let people navigate they way that works best for them.
valereee (
talk)
18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That does not mean that every list that exists always has to have a directly corresponding category paired with it. There are some circumstances where a list and a category are both justified under the respective and non-identical rules governing the appropriateness of lists and categories, but there are many other situations where one form is justifiable and the other isn't. This is of the latter type.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A dish may legitimately be defined by the specific region that it's regional to, but the simple fact of being a regional dish is not a substantive or defining point of commonality between dishes that are regional to different regions from each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:International 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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. (there was another, but on inspection it didn't appear to be international. No obvious distinction between a society and an organisation or an association
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The one article:
List of Cosmopolitan Clubs is little more a dabpage for clubs sharing a name. The American section says that they were started in 1903, but those on other continents are often older. Many of the clubs listed have not article, the link being to the town where they are. This is a clear case of "shared name", so that I do not think the list has any coherence. It does not merit a category; let alone one of its own.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classical Latin novelists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is anachronistic, as the
novel as a genre is for the most part is held to date in the west from 1600 or so. Note that this would obviate the merger of
Category:Roman-era novelists, which has this as its only member.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment (as nominator of the merge of the parent) I wouldn't mind merging this category per
WP:SMALLCAT but whereas the main works of both writers are (perhaps anachronistically, but nevertheless) characterized as novels, I wouldn't mind either to also upmerge them to
Category:Novelists. There is also a
Category:Ancient Greek novelists, by the way, partly containing Greek-writing novelists from the Roman era. It might be an alternative to merge that category and the nominated category to
Category:Classical antique novelists.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This category has two Roman authors in it. While novels in the modern sense are later, there is fiction from a number of periods: the two authors clearly wrote fiction; Beowulf is clearly fiction; so is Gawain and the Green Knight; and a number of medieval Romances. I am loth to see all this merged as nom, but I think we might merge it all into
Category:Ancient Roman fiction writers, with cognate categories for other languages and periods.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I am familiar with the term "late antique", but am not clear what the appropriate term for Greek in 1-4 centuries AD is. If "classical antique" is the correct term, I would support that, but it is a discussion for another day: possibly one for the closing Admin to start.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Pittsboro, Indiana
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Royal family orders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and populate. The one article lists awards made by a series of British, Swedish and Norwegian monarchs, each apparently with its own article. These have a sufficient coherence to merit keeping them.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To match both the parent category and documentary film subcat. The reason I didn't take this to
WP:CFDS is I see that that another editor applied to a Cfd tag toCategory:Documentary films about health care but didn't know how to actually create the Cfd, it seems. And looking at the edit history -- something about "promoting minority styling," whatever that means -- this is clearly not unopposed. Tho the rename seems to me to be obvious per X of Y.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
No, it was never tagged for that discussion in November.
User:Kashmiri then made an out-of-process move in December, with the justification "Spelling much more common on Wikipedia". CFD tags were added by
user:Rathfelder on 16 January 2016,
[1] but he did not start a discussion. I suggest a procedural speedy revert to "health care" after the out-of-process move. –
FayenaticLondon16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
From previous discussions I have concluded that it is pointless to try to standardise either way. Both "Healthcare" and "Health care" are in common use, with no distinction, and often in the same paragraph.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:C2C and
WP:C2D would differ with you there. When you have a main article, parent category and sub-category all aligned one way, it seems arbitrary and rather pointless to me to have a nested mid-level category spelled a different way. But clearly you disagree.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
There are many main articles and categories in healthcare. Some use one, some the other. This doesn't appear to relate to geography, language or any other variable I can identify. [[WP:C2D] "applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". That is not the case here.
Rathfelder (
talk)
20:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaking of the regional thing -- and I don't wish to be labour this -- but I notice Rathfelder that you are a member of
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, "whose main goal is to organise and bring clarity to the vast number of articles on Wikipedia related to the United Kingdom's National Health Service," whose
WP:LEAD begins: "Each of the four countries of the United Kingdom has a publicly funded health care system" -- note the spelling. So if I understand correctly, not only haven't you addressed the main article
Health care, you haven't even managed (or even tried?) to get the UK article to reflect your preference, though you worked on it as recently as Feb. 2. You're attempting to use the category system to address a personal preference that you don't seem to have tried to implement in the most basic way at the article level, even in your own Wikiproject. Or perhaps you did, and it was rejected by other editors? I did see that back in December -- at the time you attempted this out-of-process move -- you did change the lead to
Publicly funded health care, to reflect your preference, with the edit summary "There is a plan to make usage more consistent across the encyclopedia - including renaming this article." Yet the plan is yours, unilaterally. For example you moved
Single-payer healthcare to its new name in December with no discussion whatsoever. I think WP:Trout most definitely applies here, for the way you've gone about this.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
12:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I concluded that this was probably a futile exercise, and my efforts, unsatisfactory though they were, to raise discussion, got little reaction. It is certainly clear that in the world at large there is no consistent usage. So, see for example
Category:Health care which goes on to talk about "articles on the health sciences and healthcare profession..." But if there is any interest in the idea I am more interested in changing the categories than the articles, because the single word helps in locating relevant categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:25, 31 March 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:Led Zeppelin album track list templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Regional dishes of the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep - as I argued last time, some people use categories to find info, some prefer to use lists. I think we should let people navigate they way that works best for them.
valereee (
talk)
18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That does not mean that every list that exists always has to have a directly corresponding category paired with it. There are some circumstances where a list and a category are both justified under the respective and non-identical rules governing the appropriateness of lists and categories, but there are many other situations where one form is justifiable and the other isn't. This is of the latter type.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A dish may legitimately be defined by the specific region that it's regional to, but the simple fact of being a regional dish is not a substantive or defining point of commonality between dishes that are regional to different regions from each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:International 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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. (there was another, but on inspection it didn't appear to be international. No obvious distinction between a society and an organisation or an association
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The one article:
List of Cosmopolitan Clubs is little more a dabpage for clubs sharing a name. The American section says that they were started in 1903, but those on other continents are often older. Many of the clubs listed have not article, the link being to the town where they are. This is a clear case of "shared name", so that I do not think the list has any coherence. It does not merit a category; let alone one of its own.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Classical Latin novelists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is anachronistic, as the
novel as a genre is for the most part is held to date in the west from 1600 or so. Note that this would obviate the merger of
Category:Roman-era novelists, which has this as its only member.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment (as nominator of the merge of the parent) I wouldn't mind merging this category per
WP:SMALLCAT but whereas the main works of both writers are (perhaps anachronistically, but nevertheless) characterized as novels, I wouldn't mind either to also upmerge them to
Category:Novelists. There is also a
Category:Ancient Greek novelists, by the way, partly containing Greek-writing novelists from the Roman era. It might be an alternative to merge that category and the nominated category to
Category:Classical antique novelists.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This category has two Roman authors in it. While novels in the modern sense are later, there is fiction from a number of periods: the two authors clearly wrote fiction; Beowulf is clearly fiction; so is Gawain and the Green Knight; and a number of medieval Romances. I am loth to see all this merged as nom, but I think we might merge it all into
Category:Ancient Roman fiction writers, with cognate categories for other languages and periods.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I am familiar with the term "late antique", but am not clear what the appropriate term for Greek in 1-4 centuries AD is. If "classical antique" is the correct term, I would support that, but it is a discussion for another day: possibly one for the closing Admin to start.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Pittsboro, Indiana
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Royal family orders
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and populate. The one article lists awards made by a series of British, Swedish and Norwegian monarchs, each apparently with its own article. These have a sufficient coherence to merit keeping them.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.