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 seems that Wikipedia has not yet developed a stable consensus on how to use political boundaries for the geographical categorisation of historical people. In most cases, this is uncontentious, because blatant anachronisms can be avoided through the use of narrow geographical areas, so that Category:People from Foo (city) remains accurate even though Foo city has at various times been part of Ruritania, the Republic of Narnia, and the Narnia-Ruritanian Empire ... but such change does not always happen by the shuffling of neatly consistent blocs of territory. Provinces can be merged or divided, making it hard to establish a consistent nomenclature which avoids anachronism and/or ambiguity.
In this case, the discussion here seemed on initial inspeation to be rather pointless, because the nominated category currently contains only 2 articles: List of Karelians and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde. However, that seems to be the case only because an editor has today created Category:People from the Republic of Karelia and populated it. I think it's unfortunate that this action was taken unilaterally, particularly since it was done by an editor who was aware of this discussion (having contributed to it), and should not have pre-empted its outcome. (A WP:TROUT is on its way).
Nonetheless, the sub-categorisation does not appear to me to be a perverse outcome, so I will let it stand ... but since it was implemented out-of-process, editors who disagree with it should feel free to make any new nominations for renaming or merger, without any need for a delay after this closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Karelia to Category:People from the Republic of Karelia

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Republic of Karelia, all of its other subcats, and main article Republic of Karelia. LeSnail (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge would also be needed, as some of these people are from Karelia, Finland. LeSnail (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split with the Finns going into Category:People from North Karelia or Category:People from South Karelia as appropriate, and the Russians going into the renamed category. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for the reason presented by the nominator (consistency). However, it should be noted that none of the persons concerned is from North Karelia or South Karelia. All of them are from what is now the Russian side of the Russo-Finnish border. Some of them are from districts which belonged to Finland before 1940, but which since then have belonged first to the Karelo-Finnish SSR, then to the Karelian ASSR and now to the Republic of Karelia. Monegasque (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's a problem, because people who predate the establishment of the SSR really shouldn't be categorized into being resident in it. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no problem at all, since the established Wikipedia practice is to categorize persons according to present-day administrative borders, regardless of when the persons concerned were born. The same logic applies to all countries. For instance, persons born in the territory which nowadays constitutes the Federal Republic of Germany are categorized within a framework consisting of the present-day German states, districts and cities, regardless of whether they were born at a time when the FRG and its constituent states existed or not. It is important to note the role of subcategories within this system. The German states, the Russian republics, oblast and krais, the Polish voivodeships and so on include subcategories: districts, counties, cities, towns and so on. Persons tend to first be categorized within larger units such as German or U.S. states, subjects of the Russian Federation and so on. Later on, they normally get categorized within subcategories (counties, districts, cities, towns etc). Monegasque (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a problem becausesince CfD 2012/Feb/29 Years in Benin and CfD 2012/Feb/26 1977 establishments in South Sudan the push has been to standardize in the other direction. I am not active enough in WP these days to mount an effort one way or the other.- choster (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. However if there is a plan to categorize people by current jurisdiction, it should be rethought. We should not be putting people in Category:People of Poland (I guess this is actually Category:Polish people, which makes the proposed idea even worse) based on the fact of where they were raised in 1480 now being in Poland if it was then under the control of Prussia. That would be ahistorical, inaccurate and misleading. There is a reason why we have categorizes such as Category:Austro-Hungarian emigrants to the United States and it is because to call people coming from Lemburg to the United States in 1880 "Ukrainian" would just be a misuse of the term on 15 levels. The same with calling people who died in Haifa in 1890 Israelis, or people who died in Sidon in 1820 "Lebanese". People who died in the Mount Lebanon region in that year maybe, but not those dieing in Sidon. It would also be grossely inacurate to put anyone who died in 1900 under the category Category:People of Pakistan (Category:Pakistani people?). There are times when the political power over where a person lives can be ignored to some extent, but there are limits to this and no amount of twisting interpretations of the past will make my ancestors who came to the US from what is now Uzhgorod Ukrainian. They were Jews. That was their ethnicity. Most of their non-Jewish neighbors were Slovaks, while a few may have been Hungarians. Any Ukrainian in that city in 1888 would have been a recent migrant from somewhere else. They were also proud citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who in later years would try to claim some sort of special connection to Emperor Franz Josef. They were People of Austro-Hungary, but clearly not People of Slovakia, since that would not exist at all until it was forged as a sub-unit of Czechoslovakia by Slovaks meeting with Czechs in Pittsburgh 30 years later, and no one would ever concieve of Ungvar, now renamed Uzhgorod as part of Ukraine until it was annexed into Ukrain by the SOviet Union at the end of World War II. The return of it to Hungarian control after the fall of Czechoslovakia was a closer reflection of the ethnic situation there than the placement of it in Ukraine. A slavish following of the current political jurisdictions can only lead to truly bizarre characterisations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1910 census showed Ungvar with an 80% Magyar population, but it is unclear how the Jews there were classified. The region was about a third Magyarr, a third Slovak and a fifthed Rusyn/Ruthenian. Despite later attempts to confuse the issue, the Rusyns/Ruthenians at that time were clearly a distinct ethnic group from the Ukrainians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename This means I have repudiated my previous vote. There is an article on Karelia. It is clearly distinct and different than the Republic from Karelia. There is nothing preventing the creation of Category:People from the Republic of Karelia for those connected with the Republic of Karelia and its predecessors going back to the formation of the Karelo-Finnish SSR. However people connected with this place before its annexation into the USSR need to be categorized seperately. Karelia is a region that exists despite the political control of various powers over it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming It's apples and oranges as John Pack Lambert so eloquently states above (8 April version). It is fine to use modern distinctions when applicable, but we have both Category:Carthaginians and Category:People from Tunis. --Bejnar (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example above doesn't quite work as an analogy, because Ancient Carthage was not a region (such as Karelia), but an ancient city-state and Category:Carthaginians is a subcategory of Category:People of former countries, Category:People from Carthage (thus not of Category:People from Tunis) and Category:Ancient African people. On the other hand, Category:People from Silesia and Category:People from Pomerania are perfect analogies of the Karelian case. Karelia, Silesia and Pomerania are all historical regions currently divided between two (in the case in Silesia, three) countries. Karelia as a region consists of four parts: the Republic of Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus on the Russian side and North Karelia as well as South Karelia on the Finnish side of the border. If we were to define Category:People from Karelia as a subcategory of Category:People by region (as People from Silesia and People from Pomerania are), instead of a subcategory of Category:People by federal subject in Russia, a new Category:People from the Republic of Karelia would of course need to be created. This new category (a subcategory of Category:People by federal subject in Russia) would of course be as well one of the subcategories of Category:People from Karelia, alongside with Category:People from North Karelia, Category:People from South Karelia and the categories for people from the cities and districts of the Karelian Isthmus. All this according to the same logic which applies in the completely analogous cases of Category:People from Silesia and Category:People from Pomerania: a distinction between the historical region and the present-day territorial units it consists of. It is important to realize that whereas Ancient Carthage and Austria-Hungary are former states and do not exist anymore (no sane person living today in Prague, Vienna, Budapest or Bratislava would say they are living in "Austria-Hungary"), Karelia, Silesia and Pomerania still do exist as regions, although each of them is divided between two (in the case of Silesia, three) countries. Monegasque (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. The Helpful One 15:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Côte d'Ivoire to all 4 parent categories

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article. There are no similar categories for any other African country. LeSnail (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger - Africa is a huge continent comprising 54 sovereign countries, with numerous cathedrals in diverse and geographically distant countries, from Algeria to South Africa to Côte d'Ivoire. Merging a single country's cathedral category into a larger continental category makes it harder to locate an individual cathedral(s). Other important cathedrals exist in Côte d'Ivoire - they just don't have English-language articles yet. Scanlan (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - I'd be happy to create categories for the other existing African cathedral articles by country if that helps. Scanlan (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: How many roman catholic cathedrals are there in Cote D'Ivoire? If the answer is 1, you cannot have a category for it per WP:SMALLCAT. Perhaps consider making a list of all the cathedrals on the continent, organized by country? --Karl.brown (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there are 15 Roman Catholic Cathedras in Ivory Coast at present. I do not know how many others there have been in the past that are not presently used as Cathedrals. My guess is that there have probably been at least 17 Roman Catholic cathedrals over time in that country, although the total number could easily by 20 or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - for now. There is an exemption to WP:SMALLCAT that allows for categories even with only one article - if there is an established category tree. At the moment, though, there is not - this is the only by-country subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Africa. That said, if at a future date that category is by-country diffused, no prejudice should be attached to recreating this category as part of that effort. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. This is part of the well-established by-country subcategories in Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals. I don't think it's particularly interesting to have continental subcategories though and it certainly doesn't make sense to use these as anything other than container categories for the country-specific categories. Pichpich (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are 16 docieces and archdioceses in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Côte d'Ivoire. I would expect each to have a cathedral. As a former French colony, I would expect Côte d'Ivoire to have a large Catholic church. The problem is that the category needed to be populated fully, probably by creating articles on the other 15 cathedrals. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are 15 dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in Ivory Coast at present. There is no reason why we could not have articles or at least article sections on at least 10 cathedrals. The fact that Africa is under covered and often ignored in article creation should not be used as reason to stop logical categories that are part of the standard Roman Catholic cathedrals by country plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, and per users Pichpich, Peterkingiron, and JPL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 12 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Moscow to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Russia and Category:Cathedrals in Moscow

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Fails WP:SMALLCAT. LeSnail (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT--Karl.brown (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. No possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge At present there is only 1 Roman Catholic Cathedral in Moscow and only 4 in Russia. While I am not sure that Mr. Kingiron is right in claiming there is "no possibility of expansion" because it is possible there have been other Cathedrals in the past, Cathedrals by city of location and specific denomination they are part of is not part of a regular scheme. It is rare for there to be multiple Roman Catholic Cathedrals in any given city at any time, and it would only be in cities with heavy changes in Cathedrals or extremely long histories of Roman Catholicism where you would see more than 5 Cathedrals through all history. Do we even have Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Rome?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Neurobiologists to Category:Neuroscientists

Nominator's rationale: Neurobiologists redirects to neuroscientist and neurobiology redirects to neuroscience: The two terms are synonymous. Having separate categories therefore does not make any sense. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The two terms are not quite synonymous: 'neurobiology' is often used in a more restrictive sense than 'neuroscience'. However, the concepts overlap too extensively for these categories to be maintained separately. LeSnail (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. If the naming gets sorted out, this can be nominated again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Iranian heads of Judicial System to Category:Chief Justices of Iran

Nominator's rationale: Another uses incorrectly placed a merge tag here, but I think the category merge makes sense D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the target is a much better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, pending further information. According to uncited information in this article, the chief justice of Iran is not the head of the judiciary system; they are two distinct positions. The head of the judiciary system appoints the chief justice, it says. I'm not sure if this is accurate or not, but if it is, of course we shouldn't merge the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect) one; purge the present category (if kept). This category contains the Minister of Justice 1927-37; six post revolution chief justices and two people who do not belong here at all, one being chief prosecutor. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the current category is named as a people of x nationality by occupation category, when it appears what we really want is a people by y office category, thus maybe Category:Heads of the Judicial System of Iran would work. The issue is not that the people are Iranian but that they are head of The Judicial System of Iran or whatever exactly it is called. The system not the person has a connection to Iran. The nationality of the person will probably be Iranian as well, but that is not the issue in the category. the current name might actually be meant to be Category:Iranian heads of Judicial systems or Category:Iranian heads of judicial systems, which would allow people heading sub-national judicial system in Iran, and Iranians elsewhere heading some type of judicial system. I am pretty sure that is not what we want. I guess another possible name would be Category:Heads of the Iranian Judicial System. I have no opinion on JS of Iran verses Iranian JS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, pending further information. The article Judicial system of Iran makes no mention in its body text of a post of "Chief Justice", although that title is used in the infobox. The section Structure of the judicial system refers variously to a "head of the judiciary" (without giving a capitalised title) and a separate "Minister of Justice". I think that the relevant sections of the Iranian constitution confirm this, but I would like more input from someone who knows a bit about the topic before we make any changes. I suggest a discussion at WikiProject Iran to clarify matters before any changes are made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As noted by some editors, it would help if there was a centralised discussion on how to approach this type of categorisation, which has been the subject of several inconclusive recent CfDs. May I suggest WT:YEARS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1537 establishments by country to Category:1537 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Another user incorrectly used a merge tag for this, but I think the category merge makes sense. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and upmerge sub-cats. We need to figure out a standardized rule set for these categories. What is the earliest year we will subdivide by country? I would say 1700 at the earliest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poking into a large category structure like this with no attempt made (and really no existing viable avenue) to alert other users who would likely be interested in discussing guidelines that should be implemented for the entire hierarchy, is non-productive at best, but I'd suggest it's counter-productive rather. As I've stated in the ongoing CfD about Category:1889 establishments in the United States we need to set up a dedicated forum for these discussions that keep popping up in these CfD nominations. I've also made some suggestions there how we could proceed about this. __meco (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a larger system. Tim! (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have a few concerns over these, but it is more procedural then retention. First, we should be filling these in in some order. Adding only one country at a time over a period of a 100 years can leave the impression that the tree is not useful. Having said that, it is really difficult to fill in category trees like this due to the huge amount of work involved. Our precision naming does not allow someone to look at an article and know that it is in England or Germany or Canada. So populating these categories requires a lot of work and creating a lot of small categories up front. The second one is that care needs to be exercised as countries change names, die or are born. This has been an issue in the past and populating categories like this is likely to cause more problems. Having said that, it is not a reason to delete these, but it is a caution about the problems that will be created when someone does this work. If only one person is doing the populating, it will never get finished. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the discourse on these years hierarchies continues in a completely disjointed fashion. I really wonder why people such as yourself present such succinct and elaborate reflections time and again instead of getting with me and the process of establishing a central forum for discussions and creating guidelines and specifications. __meco (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm slowly creating more and more of these, and there is quite a lot of info for many years and countries. Upmerging these cats makes it harder to navigate the cat tree: you get the info from the "establishments" side, but you lose it from the "country" side of the cat. If these cats are not kept, they need minimally to be merged to both sides of the tree, not just to one side. Fram (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge As in the Karelia discussions there is no consensus on whether to use historical or present-day names and borders, and moreover the concept of a "country" is only reliable in the modern age.- choster (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- These "by year" categories are remote periods are pretty pointless. I do not accept that these trees should exist. We might do a double merge, merging also to a decade by country category. I would also contest that the Norwegian church was established in 1537: Norway has been a Christian country (with a church) for 1000 years. It may have separated itself from Rome in 1537, but it was not new! Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we merge all the countents up to Category:1537 establishments that category will only have 9 articles and 2 subcats. I would say that my vote here is a "for now" merger. If at some future time we have well over 50 entries in this category dividing by country could be considered. Maybe not even that many. However the current level does not justify this type of subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on comments in other places, how well do we know what the borders of the older countries were? Were they static or did they evolve over the years. If the later, are we asking for trouble in sourcing for categories like this? So if we are not confident that we can add accurate information then deleting would be the wisest choice. No opinion since I don't know the answers to my questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the further back in time we go the harder it is to place boundaries. This also comes into play once we move beyond nation states. On the other hand, the claimed and real boundaries of both the United States and Mexico in 1821, when in theory at least they did not have mutually exclusive claims, are a case in point. Is a school established within the Cherokee domains in 1859 established in the United States? I think we should err on the side of caution, and only put things in established by country categories when we can be sure they belong in that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to decade or century: Before 1800 at least, I don't think there's much value in maintaining the by-year categories. However, I do support keeping them 'by country' (as in, the modern state). It is true that this will be in many cases inaccurate, but trying to make the categories accurate will be even harder (if not to say impossible), because over any 100 year period there will be a dozen or more different governments/entities that might have held a particular scrap of land. Thus, sticking things within the borders of the modern nation state where they currently sit seems to make sense. If they moved around a fair bit, stick them in 2 countries. I think one exception to consider is things which no longer exist. In that case, I think it's a bit more debatable whether they should be slotted in this tree. Remember, the purpose of categories is not to teach history, it is to aid navigation. I think we have to put up with a bit of inaccuracy in the name of simplicity. --KarlB (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is much better to not try to divide by geography at all than to divide by geographies that would not come into play for centuries. Since these are categories related to things going on in the years/decades in question, they should reflect the facts involved then. This will especially be heldpful for things that are hard to place in a specific location, but clearly belong to a specific political entity, like coins and government agencies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we start classifying Mosques established in Haifa in 1820 as Category:1820s establishments in Israel you can bet we will get people truly irate. We should not go down that path.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's a great example. let's see what happens in the real wikipedia: Al-Bahr_Mosque, built in the 16h century, when there certainly wasn't a modern-day state of Israel. Article is created, Category:Mosques_in_Israel added to it over 1 year ago, and so far no disputes. I really think we should have a simple rule, which will end so many debates: if the thing still exists today, then put it in the country where it is today. I really can't see someone getting offended over someone saying "such and such a mosque is in Israel" - because it is. We could just make sure we clarify in the categories, so people understand if we say '1530s in England', that means the modern day England, not the boundaries of some historical state. --KarlB (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Karl, you are ignoring the fact that the Al-Bahr Mosque is an extant mosque. It is categorized on being in Israel because it exists today and is in Israel. This is a totally different case that what would happen if we had categorizes for establishments in a country that did not exist. The mosque is being categorized based on its present location. It is not in any establishment category. Do you really not understand how controversial it would be to create categories that claim that the nation of Israel existed in 1820?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's not what the category would claim. The category doesn't say "Establishments by year in contemporary country", not does it say "establishments by year in current country". The latter is equally valid (and arguably more useful to our readers) than the former. I want to know which things in current country A were established in which year. Kleinlützel Priory is an establishment in 1136 in Switzerland, and in the Holy Roman Empire. Only including the latter would not be helpful for many people. Hospices de Beaune is now listed as a 1443 establishment. Assuming you would add a country to it, would you refine it as "in Burgundy" or "In France"? If you would only list it as "In Burgundy", how would people interested to know the history of current France be able to find it easily?
  • The question should be: does this category help some users, without being wrong. Since these categories are helpful for some, and are not wrong (in the "current" interpretation of country), they should not be deleted but stimulated. Fram (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you are underestimating the intensity of feelings about proper naming of categories that related to Palestine if you think that categories that designate things as happening in Israel in 1820 would every fly. You have no idea how much debate there has been over broad historical categories connected with Israel, categorizing things that specifically, especially non-Jewish things, as in Israel in the early 19th century would lead to major debates. To apply the name Israel to anything happinging between 720 BC and AD 1948 is not only not historically defiensible, but it will be rightly attacked as pushing a POV that undervalues the majority of people who lived in that land, at least when used after AD 100. Before AD 100 it just might work, but Judea at least through AD 70 Judea would be a better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not pushing a POV. It would only be pushing a POV if people insisted that Israel was acceptable, and at the same time insisted that a more contemporary term (whether Judea, Palestine, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Seleucid Empire, or whoever else was or wasn't ruler there at some time) was not acceptable. I have no objection against using the contemporary term as well. Fram (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ken Batcher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged, only has two articles (and main.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, the creator of the category, is currently on a temporary block and therefore can't participate in the discussion. He has asked that the following comments be added to this discussion: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Batcher is associated with a number of other important computer science topics, e.g. the Goodyear Massively Parallel Computer (at least one), associative computing, etc. WP doesn't have articles on many of these topics. See the description of his research at his (Computer-Science Nobel Prize) award. Hillis's book on the MPP called Batcher the original MPP hacker. That said, a rename may be advisable, e.g. to 'works of Batcher'."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response But this category isn't works by him... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category members are not only not works by him, they aren't either works about him. They are just algorithsm which he has developed (but likely, others have added to them over time). Even Linus Torvalds, who created one of the most popular pieces of software of all time, doesn't have an eponymous cat. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the default is not to have these categories unless there is a particular reason to have the one in question, which no one has shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Wikipedia categories named after religious figures. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after Scientology figures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Very unlikely to be populated by anything other than Category:L. Ron Hubbard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. __meco (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedia categories named after religious figures only. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism to Category:Socialist anti-communist organizations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Or somesuch per the parents Category:Anti-communist organizations in the United States and Category:Democratic socialist and social democratic parties and organizations in the United States. No matter what, the name is a mouthful, but I don't see any other categories using the construction "X opposed to communism." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, the creator of the category, is currently on a temporary block and therefore can't participate in the discussion. He has asked that the following comments be added to this discussion: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Anti-Communist' has negative connotations, unfortunately, because of propaganda by communists and anti-anti-communists. Thus, the use of 'anti-communist' carries a considerable POV burden. 'Opposed to Communism' is descriptive and NPOV."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Anti-communist" is used to conjure up images of the John Birch Society and McCarthyism. It has too much baggage to be assumed to be equivalent to "opposed to Communism".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Political parties are, by their nature, opposed to any and all other parties to some degree (c.f. People's Front of Judea) But on the other hand, from a distance, socialism and communism are indistinguishable and so the category is quite subjective or tendentious. Categories are not suitable for controversial political statements because they cannot easily be supported by citations. This category is therefore contrary to several policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would Category:Socialist (non-communist) organizations in the United States be better. This would make clear their political stance without raising their POV on communism. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am repudiating my old vote. Warden has convinced me that this category is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are real issues here with definition and many socialist organizations were not communist but not consistently anti communist. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a POV exercise of some sort. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Warden. This category should be the same as "Category:Democratic socialist and social democratic parties and organizations in the United States." If it is not, then we have issues of defining "opposed to" and "communism". TFD (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment TFD I am not sure "Democratic Socialist" has ever caught on as a term in the United States. At some level grouping multiple political parties by an assumed shared ideology is quite difficult. It is much easier when they are grouped by real shared structual connections. Thus the various Republican Parties in each state in the United States can easily be grouped, and in general Communist parties in many nations can be grouped. However trying to group the Republican Party in the United States with any political party in any other country will be very difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as it is not a null set) and propose rename to "Socialist non-communist parties in the US" to be discussed on the appropriate talk page if anyone really is affronted by "anti-communist" <g>. Collect (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warden. The category is rather tendentious, because the distance between communists and socialists varies over and time, and depends in part on the perspective of the commentator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 12 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no action for now. Further discussion is needed to decide whether the hatnote of this category should become an article called Wireless locating, and to what extent this overlaps with Location awareness. Editors should feel free to start a new CfD discussion when those issues have been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wireless locating to something or create a lead article.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category seems a little unfocused. I'm not sure how bluetooth belongs here, but it is. Wireless locating does not exist as an article, but the introduction here would make an article that is longer then a stub. So one option would be to keep the category, cleanup it up and move the introduction into a new article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure it makes that much sense. If you use a surveying theodolite you can "wirelessly" determine your location from known locations... 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd suggest reaching out to the creator of the article to understand his rationale, he seems like an expert in wireless locating/etc and has created a number of articles, like Location awareness, etc. He also seems to like categories, and has created a number of articles in this space. I agree the cat description is too long, but Location awareness may be the cat article, I'm not enough of an expert to be sure ... --Karl.brown (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the lead should be transposed to an article, preferably with citations. I think we should wait until that happens to act on the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Washington, D.C. templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District of Columbia templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Washington, D.C. templates and main article and cat are at that name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge "District of Columbia" is the the entity that contains Washington. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response District of Columbia redirects to Washington, D.C.... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Washington, DC is still in DC. The push for statehood is for DC, not Washington, when Washington was founded, there were several other towns in DC as well, and the territory lost in retrocession just before the Civil War was never part of Washington. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Okay, but nothing on Wikipedia is named District of Columbia or Category:District of Columbia, so why should this be any different? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 abolished all jurisdictions within the District of Columbia other than the city of Washington, so in any practical sense the two are synonymous, and while I personally believe "District of Columbia" is the more correct term, discussion at Talk:Washington, D.C. has kept the main article at Washington, D.C., and auxiliary content like templates and categories should should conform.- choster (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment though that which existed before 1871 still wouldn't be part of Washington, either in part or in full. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Washington: long debates have led to articles being at "Washington, D.C." Anything separate on DC is redundant. I suspect that we do not have a lot on DC before 1871, but that can also be placed in Washington item, because that is the current location. We cannot afford to have too many over-nice disticntions, particlularly in technical categories, like templates. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we need to avoid presentism. The District of Columbia existed starting in 1801, and Georgeotwn was not part of Washington until 1871. Alexandria was also part of D.C. without ever being part of Washington.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not correct and not relevant. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and the city of Washington in 1791. The main article and category for D.C. are Washington, D.C. and Category:Washington, D.C., and since this category is for templates relating to D.C., it covers the identical subject matter at Category:Washington, D.C. templates. There are no templates which would relate to D.C. before the 1871 Organic Act but not after.- choster (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have fixed an odd typo I made. choster's point that I was 11 years off allows him to chant "not correct" but misses the point. My incorrectness becomes an argument that is less relevant. We get 11 more years of DC being much beyond the city limits of Washington.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge all to new categories named "Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albanian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Albanian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:American Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:American Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Austrian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Austrian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Belgian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Belgian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Canadian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Canadian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:French Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:French Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:German Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:German Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Indian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Indian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Irish Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Irish Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Italian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Italian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Pakistani Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Pakistani Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Peruvian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Peruvian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Scottish Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Scottish Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters by order to Category:Roman Catholic nuns by order

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters by nationality

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters (or redirecting to Category:Roman Catholic nuns)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Some time ago, there was a test nomination to determine if the "Roman Catholic Religious Sisters" categories should be merged into the appropriate "Roman Catholic nuns" categories. It was decided that yes, they should be. This is a follow-up nomination to that discussion to merge or rename the other categories. This was a scheme fully developed by a sole editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge: for me the key phrase is this one, "However, in popular speech, the terms "nun" and "sister" are used interchangeably for any woman religious." from here.--Karl.brown (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I had not realized that the debate was still open. I continue to oppose this merger since the lifestyles of nuns and Religious Sisters can be extremely different. Despite the acceptance of Karl Brown and others that the popular mix up in terminology is an acceptable rationale, this is not a criterion used for other fields.

Religious Sisters fought for centuries to be recognized as a way of life in the Catholic Church. To mix them in with nuns seems to be contrary to their struggle and the reality of their lives, which is still recognized in Canon law of the Catholic Church as a distinct category.Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in wikipedia we use common usage, and in common usage "nuns" covers all religious sisters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename all to Category:Fooish Roman Catholic nuns and religious sisters as had been suggested in the previous discussion, or to Category:Fooish members of Roman Catholic female orders and societies (per Category:Roman Catholic female orders and societies, and as there was a previous objection to the technical term "religious institutes" on grounds of unfamiliarity). Like many other subjects, the common and formal usages of terms have become jumbled, but the formal meaning persists and should not be trivialized, especially considering this is a denomination-specific branch and one would expect increasing precision with increasing specificity. Any big church could be called a cathedral and get into Category:Cathedrals, but not just any big Catholic church can be placed in Category:Catholic cathedrals.- choster (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose And I dispute that "nun" and "sister" are used interchangeably in all cases. For one thing, as noted above, there are orders which do not use the terms interchangeably. (Some in the RCC consider a nun to be cliostered, and sisters to be non cloistered, but it varies from group to group.) See also: this, for example. - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I would support: Rename all to Category:Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. This would seem to be the most accurate. And it also allows for the adjective "religious" to modify both "sisters" and "nuns". Which is useful since a broader term for them is religious. - jc37 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose: oppose nom, but Per Jc37 I now support Category:Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. --KarlB (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (purging of non-nuns, if necessary). By the way, I thought we had decided that the designation "Roman" was redundant, at least outside areas where there are Anglo-Catholics. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck with purging. References themselves differ on nomenclature. I was just reading some Vatican II documents at vatican.va. And you're not going to find consistency. I think part of the issue is that the RCC (while providing various guidance) seems to be intentionally leaving the precise naming up to each organisation/order. I'm not certain, but this may be because the RCC typically relies upon 'tradition' for such things. And perhaps also because each order is different. (See also Religious institute (Catholic). The quote in the lead is telling.) - jc37 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jc37 is partly right, as Church law (to the best of my knowledge) no longer distinguishes between the type of vow made, as was true in earlier centuries. The Annuario Pontificale, however, continues to distinguish monastic Orders from institutes of "active life."

Need I comment, though, on the suggested title given here, however? Under what category of insult does it fall? Prejudice or speaking ill, or both? Humor it is not. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?- choster (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the vast majority of speakers of the English language will use the term "nun" for any woman in the Roman Catholic church who has taken a vow of celibacy. This is the "common use" of the term among English speakers. Thus the suggested names are those in common use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a reference supporting the assertion that that's true amongst the "the vast majority of speakers of the English language"? I ask because that hasn't been what I've been seeing when checking references for this. When looking for references, you might want to start at the vatican.va website for official documents. then do some searches for the various institutions themselves and what they call themselves, and finally, search through articles discussing such people and institutions in major periodicals and media sites. Among many other things... At least, that's at least "some" of what I did for this. Perhaps your research process elicited you what you feel is more clear results? I look forward to hearing about it. - jc37 06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nom). I can support the suggestion that we switch to Category:Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. Then we can merge all the Religious Sisters and the nuns categories into the same one. Problem solved. This is a good solution because as jc37 has indicated, nomenclature is inconsistent and confusing—just too fine a distinction for categorization. I would suggest making both "Fooish Roman Catholic nuns" and "Fooish Roman Catholic Religious Sisters" category redirects to the new categories to avoid re-creation of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Agreed with the above.--KarlB (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious Groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I would have suggested splitting except that I cannot work out a simple division of this vague collection of largely unlike things. As it stands the members don't have much in common except wildly differing connections to something about religion. Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this looks like a mess. you may want to ask wikiproject religion to help sort this out - religious groups is just one of the problematic categories in that tree. I'd suggest a getting them involved and clean it up overall, not just this one category. --Karl.brown (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Religious groups. (broad, vague, etc.) And really should delete Category:Ethnoreligious groups, as well. Ethnoreligious group seems to have it's fair share of issues. Enough that I don't think a category can or should be based upon it. I hesitate to call it synthesis/WP:OR, but it looks close. - jc37 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't respond to whether "ethnoreligious group" is a term-of-art in sociology, but one can see from the various tags that it needs further consideration. But at any rate, its inclusion is one of the points that most drove me to this proposal, since its notion of a group is quite unlike most of the other members. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is meant to be a broad parent category, but some things are hard to fit in any sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there is no common meaning, but first check that each member/subcat is in a more specific sub-cat of Religion, e.g. religious organisations; sects should probably up to Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. Category:Ethnoreligious groups looks fine to me in Category:Religion and race. (Give me the task if necessary.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: nothing. No action was proposed, and no discussion took place. If the nominator wants something done to the category, zie should propose merger, deletion, renaming or whatever. Use of WP:TWINKLE makes that easy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Yes (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Yes album covers (which is nominated for renaming Category:Yes (band) album covers.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 5 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rules ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hopelessly ambiguous based on the main article which is a dab page at rule. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear out such a category should be an organizational category only, with little or no content pages (like many categories under fundamental) using it to categorize anything other than category heirarchies is bad. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe we are well able to manage this category just fine. I don't find the concept of "rule" to be anything unusually vague at all. Greg Bard (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this looks really bad as is. For one thing, per WP:CAT, fictional things should be kept separate from non-fictional things. Rules of Acquisition, anyone? At least Category:Fictional rules should be created to deal with some of this. - jc37 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- though diverse, almost all contain the word "rule"(s). This may be useful as a navigational aid for some one who cannot quite remember the exact name of a rule. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how exactly do you separate "fictional" from "non-fictional" rules. For something to have an article about it, someone has to have formulated the rule, and thus at some level it is not fictional. On the other hand, how real are a lot of rules in pyschology, sociology, history and economics. Especially if they are rules that later people have totally disgarded. I guess I could speak of "the rule of 54" in a book, and never explain it, and if I did it enough it might be notable enough to have its own article. However that seems unlikely. To a large extent all rules are not real, so the seperation of "fictional" and "non-fictional" rules would actually require a lot of judgement calls that could be disputed. That is not what we want going on with categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I was meaning: Rules in/from works of fiction, or some such. - jc37 04:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's not unhelpful, at least as a means of finding a more specific category to use; e.g. M'Naghten rules should go down into the sub-cat of Legal principles and doctrines, but the fact that they are all here helps me to find that one (as there is no Category:Legal rules). Adding {{cat diffuse}} and new sub-cats e.g. for Fictional is a fine idea. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment is it "helpful" or just "not unhelful". I have to admit I hate the double negation that is used to weasel out of saying anything clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Energy Centre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Move the one file to commons and delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete: agreed. --Karl.brown (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Evolution to Category:Evolution (biology)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Evolution is inherently ambiguous. The fact that this category has an extremely long introduction indicates that the name has been and can be confusing. The fact that evolution (term) is the main article further indicates the fact that the category needs renaming. The real main article appears to be located at evolution and we also have evolution (disambiguation). What do biological evolution, evolution of language and stellar evolution really have in common? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename: This more specific rename makes sense. --Karl.brown (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support makes sense, since many things evolve. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is already a category Category:Biological evolution. Contrary to the nominator's implication, biological evolution and evolution of language have a lot in common. Indeed, the Origin of Species, Darwin makes substantial use of analogies between the two. There is a need to collect articles discussing various forms of evolution because there is a meaningful sense in which they are related to each other. Most of the articles in this category are appropriate. (Stellar evolution probably does not belong.) Some sort of rename may be in order, but not the proposed one. The article evolution (term) is rather badly written and shouldn't be given too much weight. LeSnail (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which seems to make the point that a clearer name to better identify the purpose of the category is needed. The current name seems to be ambiguous enough to create some amount of confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In principle, I agree that a clearer name would be better. However no one has suggested a clearer name that is also accurate, and I can't think of one. I'm certainly open to the idea. LeSnail (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename per nom and prune. As is, this is too broad, including non-like things of shared names. - jc37 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a container category -- They are about different kinds of evolution. But purge most of the articles into more appropriate subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the claim that evolution of language and biological evolution have anything in common is false. Languages change because of complexed decisions by groups of people that generally are not made at a conscious level. Conflating biological and linguistic evolution gives more power to the false notions of connecting genetic ancestry, ethnicity and language. Ethnicity, besides being a term that has no clearly fixed meaning, only vaguely overlaps with the other two componants. You do not inherit language from your biological parents, unless you interact with them after birth. You can totally forget and abandon your birth language. Languages rise and fall in ways that are effected by migration and government policy as by actual genetic inheritance. To conflate these two just confuses all issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you are complaining about the word 'ethnicity'. I agree that it is a vague word, but no one else has mentioned it. I am also confused by the rest of your argument. First you claim that biological and language evolution have nothing in common. I presume that your next sentence is intended to back up that claim. However, unless you want to argue that biological species, unlike languages, change because of simple decisions made at a conscious level, I don't see how it supports your claim. Furthermore, no one has attempted to "conflate" anything with anything else in this discussion. I and others are merely proposing that related concepts be collected in a category. LeSnail (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that the change of language is made by people deciding to change it, not because of some selective process forcing them to change. I would also point out that some language changes are conscious and deliberate, but as I admit these are not the main ones. The putting of biological and linguistic ecolution in the same parent category is an act of conflating them, and that is being advocated by some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a container category, but diffuse per Peterkingiron. Evolution is a broad concept, of which biology is only one part. We already have a Category:Biological evolution, so all we need to do is to diffuse this one properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; our brownhaired collegue has it completely right, and yes, different kinds of evolution work by different mechanisms which is why we have subcats. With Category:Evolutionary biology we don't need a third such cat. A few articles should be diffused; see my recent edit to Graecopithecus freybergi. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Singers who perform in Classical Arabic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Singers who performed in Classical Arabic to Category:Classical Arabic-language singers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is an opposed speedy nomination. The standard format for singers by language is "FOO-language singers". I don't have a strong opinion of the basis of the opposition to the speedy nomination, but if that format is thought to be too ambiguous, the category should at least be renamed to Category:Singers who performed in classical Arabic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the current name is needed to make it clear what Classical is modifying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the alternate rename suggestion? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The target might refer to Arabic speakers who perform (western) classical music. Possibly rename Category:Singers performing in Classical Arabic. Having looked at the artilce Classical Arabic, it appears the presetn capitalisation is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The one rename that might make sense is Category:Singers who perform in Classical Arabic. I think we should avoid either the explicit past-tense or the gerund form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South American ungulates to Category:Meridiungulata

Nominator's rationale: Move to scientific name. The common name is deeply misleading. Contrary to expectations, this category is not for all ungulates from South America, but only for a particular group of them, all of which are extinct. Indeed all ungulates currently living in South America are supposed to be excluded. The main article is also at Meridiungulata. LeSnail (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Apparently this would reverse a move made in 2006. I don't know what the earlier rational was. LeSnail (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous discussion was here. There wasn't much of a rationale, just a "use English, not Latin" argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding that. LeSnail (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for accuracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename/merge C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in England by county to Category:Health in England by county

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Scotland by council area to Category:Health in Scotland by council area

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Yorkshire to Category:Health in Yorkshire

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Sussex to Category:Health in Sussex

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Somerset to Category:Health in Somerset

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Oxfordshire to Category:Health in Oxfordshire

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Leicestershire to Category:Health in Leicestershire

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Lancashire to Category:Health in Lancashire

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Essex to Category:Health in Essex

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Highland (council area) to Category:Health in Highland (council area)

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Aberdeenshire to Category:Health in Aberdeenshire

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Moray to Category:Health in Moray

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Highland (council area) to Category:Health in Highland (council area)

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Dundee to Category:Health in Dundee

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Glasgow to Category:Health in Glasgow

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in London to Category:Health in London

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in England to Category:Health in England

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Northern Ireland to Category:Health in Northern Ireland

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Aberdeen to Category:Health in Aberdeen

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Wales to Category:Health in Wales

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong to Category:Health in Hong Kong

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Alberta to Category:Health in Alberta

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in British Columbia to Category:Health in British Columbia

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Manitoba to Category:Health in Manitoba

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in New Brunswick to Category:Health in New Brunswick

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Health in Newfoundland and Labrador

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Nova Scotia to Category:Health in Nova Scotia

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Ottawa to Category:Health in Ottawa

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Ontario to Category:Health in Ontario

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Prince Edward Island to Category:Health in Prince Edward Island

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Quebec to Category:Health in Quebec

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Saskatchewan to Category:Health in Saskatchewan

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Canada by province or territory to Category:Health in Canada by province or territory

Nominator's rationale: Per recent CfD, 'Healthcare in X' categories at national level were merged to 'Health in X'. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country. Proposing this merge for some subnational units under the same logic. Karl.brown (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom. This is no different from any of the other umpteen categories already merged. LeSnail (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I combined all of these into one, so people can vote once. I would appreciate a speedy rename if admins agree. --Karl.brown (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur Was not aware of earlier upmerge of country categories, with which I agree. Hugo999 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As noted by some editors, it would help if there was a centralised discussion on how to approach this type of categorisation, which has been the subject of several inconclusive recent CfDs. May I suggest WT:YEARS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:1914 in Austria and Category:1914 in Bosnia and Herzegovina into Category:1914 in Austria-Hungary
• Nominator's Rationale as can be seen from the article Austria-Hungary the proposed target is the name we use for the country at the time in question. The fact that the one Bosnia article is also in the Austria article suggests that merger would capture what is going on. The target name also avoids the problem that Austria in 1914 even when refered to just as a sub-section of the larger Empire would never be used to refer to an area as small as what we think of by the term today. All of Tyrol, and what is today Slovenia would with out question be incorporated in the term, and most people would also include Bohemia, Galacia and related places in the term. On the other hand Austria could also be used for the specific duchy, which is a much smaller area than modern Austria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subcategories of Austria-Hungary in the same way we have Russia years as subcategories of Soviet Union years and many other examples. Tim! (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- These annual catefories are a menace. They tend to have few articles and produce complex trees. Category:1914 in Hungary also needs merging. However there should be a second merge target Category:1910s in Austria. The article also needs purging, as some of the articles do not even relate to Austira (proper). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim! and also pending a future centralized discussion and forging out of general guidelines for these years hierarchies. __meco (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Prague Party Conference belongs in the 1912 in Austria category because in 1912 Prague was in the Austria part of Austria-Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II ghettos to Category:Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe

Nominator's rationale: The rename would bring the category name into agreement with the main article Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe. I find the current name confusing. Certainly the idea is not to categorize all ghettos that happened to exist during WWII. The current name suggests, however, that at least WWII-era detention centers for Japanese-Americans would belong here, whereas the supposed main article and parent categories would not allow that. LeSnail (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename having categories agree with the relevant articles is generally a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for reasons already cited.Hoops gza (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: keep. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animal flight to Category:Animal flight and gliding

Nominator's rationale: A rename is necessary to properly reflect the contents. The main article is Flying and gliding animals. The name Category:Flying and gliding animals is conceivable, but I think would improperly suggest that it is mainly for articles about groups of animals, rather than also articles about the physiology of flight/gliding. LeSnail (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The category name is correct, the main article's name is wrong. Gliding is quite properly a form of flight.Teapeat (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split (downmerge) make gliding animals a separate category from those that have powered flight. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's probably better as it is, and it would be much more clumsy in appearance in the other categories like category:flight.Teapeat (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - gliding is a form of flight. No need to rename, or to split. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 6 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (C2C). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Harpsichord builders to Category:Harpsichord makers

Nominator's rationale: There is nothing wrong with the name of this category. Both 'builder' and 'maker' are in common usage for harpsichords. However, the parent category is Category:Musical instrument makers by instrument and all of the subcategories of that category use the word 'maker' (except Category:Organ builders!) So for consistency's sake, a rename seems to be a slight improvement. LeSnail (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Consistency makes sense here. --Karl.brown (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Fine with me. Opus33 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. The merge votes significantly outweigh the others, but it's important to know that there are other China-related discussions going on now, and this might be overruled by one or more of them in the near future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Health in the People's Republic of China to Category:Health in China

Nominator's rationale: These two categories overlap significantly. There is no clear criteria by which some articles are placed into 'China' vs the 'PRC' article. Hong Kong and Macau are both special administrative regions of the PRC, and hence it is ok to classify them underneath PRC (indeed, their articles already are classified under PRC) Karl.brown (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "China" should include Taiwan because of One China. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bigger fish to fry... see here Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Taiwan. At the moment, Category:Health in Taiwan is listed as a separate country under Category:Health by country, which makes sense from a practical point of view since they have autonomy to determine how their health system runs. I'd rather this not get political, let someone else sort that out and then put Taiwan under China if necessary in the future, but I don't think that has bearing on this particular merge. --Karl.brown (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though, both Macau and Hong Kong are also autonomous on most issues, including heathcare... 70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Just because a country pretends to have territory doesn't mean it does. There are two countries. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment though both "countries" claim the other's territory... (so... is it two countries or one country with two governments?) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nature of Reality What if every other country and the UN agree that there is one country with two governments even though that is clearly not the case on the ground. Does that universal acceptance of an obvious falsehood make it true? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I switched the order of the proposed merge, after reviewing a number of other categories, where it seems that 'China' is the standard name in 'by Country' categories. I'd also request that we stop talking about Taiwan - as of now, Taiwan is *not* part of this discussion; Taiwan is a separate category Category:Health in Taiwan. If someone in the future wants to come and argue that 'Health in Taiwan' should be part of category 'Health in China', let them make that argument, but this CfD discussion is *not* about Taiwan. If you look at the current two categories, there is no distinction between when an article is in the PRC category or the China category - they are all about institutions in PRC China.--Karl.brown (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The term 'China' in many cases encompasses both the PRC and the ROC. Supercategories that covered both Chinas are necessary for some topics, e.g., cuisine, culture, history. In my opinion the same applies to health too. Furthermore, even if it doesn't apply to health, we should avoid any spillover effect to topics that require two categories one each for China and the PRC. For the sake of consistency across different topical categories, 'People's Republic of China' shall be preferred over 'China' as the title for the PRC-specific ones. Jeffrey (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note: The following mergers shall be expected if this category is merged according to the direction proposed in the nomination:

• Category:History of the People's Republic of China‎ to Category:History of China
• Category:Military of the People's Republic of China‎ to Category:Military of China
• Category:Law of the People's Republic of China to Category:Chinese law
• etc.

Jeffrey (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I for one wouldn't propose those mergers right now. The topic space is totally different. Health is, for the most part, about current institutions and events. In addition, the examples you cite for example, Category:Military of China - are a great example of why this category naming about what 'China' means is so problematic - because Category:Military of China is littered with PRC/PLA articles! So editors are confused... I don't think that means you should merge all of the ancient history of Chinese military with current PRC stuff, but the current state of all of those categories is not great. In addition, I'm not sure why you seem to see PRC as separate from the rest of chinese history - aren't they just the current government of that landmass, which has had hundreds of different governments over the past 3000 years? Do we need to create a category for Category:Chinese Law - Qing Dynasty and then another one for Category:Chinese Law - Manchu Dynasty etc? Let me give another example: Hong Kong, for most of its history, was not part of PRC - but the Category:History of Hong Kong is now within the Category:History of the People's Republic of China. We can't expect the categories to match exactly to complex political realities on the ground...--Karl.brown (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Separation of PRC categories from the China categories is necessary for some topics, since it's either considered POV to equate them, or there are practical reasons. In the case of law, for instance, communist legal system is very different from the previous imperial law system that had been in place for tens of centuries. Further, many categories (and topical articles too) have been arranged according to the fact that China as a region is divided between two countries, and 'People's Republic of China' is natural disambiguation. In addition to that, consistency assists navigation. It's therefore better to name all PRC-specific categories as 'something of People's Republic of China'. Jeffrey (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your points re law, but not the conclusion. In some cases (for example, the Military, Ambassadors, or History) it makes sense to have separate categories for PRC. For others though, like 'Mammals of China' and 'Rivers of China' - and in this case, 'Health in China', having separate 'China' and 'PRC' cats causes confusion and overlap. In this case, the evidence for the 'Health' category is that almost all of the articles, save perhaps the 'traditional chinese medicine', apply *ONLY* to the current PRC.--Karl (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the reason why I prefer reverse merge to oppose merge. Health isn't about purely natural features like mountains, mammals, fauna, rivers, and so on and so forth. It's related to the state and other matters within the borders of the state. For the sake of consistency and easier navigation it's better to standardise all PRC-specific categories with the same way of naming. Or else those require separate categories (like law, military, history) will appear to be confusing and articles will frequently get miscategorised. (And that was your original nomination too. Just that you reverted them earlier on at 17:03, 6 April 2012.) Jeffrey (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see those categories as equivalent to this one; they have more complex intertwinings. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But then is it desirable to have some PRC-specific categories named 'China' (or 'Chinese'), and some named 'People's Republic of China? Is it desirable to have some categories named 'China' PRC-specific, while some other covers a broader concept of China? Is it better to have some sort of consistency? Jeffrey (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to clear up the current confusion. Now that we've moved People's Republic of China to China, we should adjust the categories accordingly. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in the other way round. People's Republic of China is unambiguous and is therefore natural disambiguation. Some topics are common to both Chinas (both the PRC and the ROC, e.g., Category:Traditional Chinese medicine and Eating disorders in Chinese women), and these articles should fall within a category for the China region. Jeffrey (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and do not reverse merge The country article is at China not People's Republic of China and the categories should match that, not perpetuate confusion by the back door. Topics common to both China and Taiwan should be in the categories for both countries. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What about topics where the term 'China' unavoidably covers both Chinas, or topics that require two categories one each for China and the PRC? Jeffrey (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eating disorders in Chinese women is a great example - many of the references cite Chinese-American or Chinese-Australian women. And I was the one who placed it, only in the past few days, under Health in China, which seemed a better fit than the previous cats. In any case, this article can be classified under Category:Health in the United States and Category:Health in Australia and Category:Chinese culture and Category:Republic of China, there are all sorts of ways to classify articles. The fact that an article may be about things in Taiwan and things in PRC is not a reason to have a top-level country-category which covers both of them. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's the existing arrangement for such topics, e.g., military, law, history, as mentioned above. Jeffrey (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Our country article is at China, this category is a descriptive title that follows the naming convention 'Health in <country>' in every other instance. This is a simple consistency change. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overlap is annoying. The country is named China. This isn't a discussion about Taiwan. The appropriate place for inclusion or exclusion of Taiwan is on the talk page of that category, not here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Comment For the sake of preserving consistency I have nominated a few other PRC categories for merging. Jeffrey (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Current topic. CMD (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I have to agree that ROC/Taiwan is not involved here and this should proceed as clear overlap. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per Jc37's decision for other similar Cfd's on 8th, 9th and 10th April. Jeffrey (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are no taiwan or ROC related articles in this tree. There is an existing 'Health in Taiwan' category which is adequate. Jc37's decision should not be construed as global in scope. --KarlB (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

follow up for closer: It appears Jc37 has struck certain comments referenced above by Jeffrey Fitzpatrick: [1]. --KarlB (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Their scopes are different. Jeremy (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The proposal is to merge these. CMD (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the scopes of two categories do not overlap should we merge them? In what way is it a pointless comment?[2] Be civil. Jeffrey (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• They do overlap. I was civil, the comment points out one point which is common in merge debates but doesn't provide any sort of argument. CMD (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless it's reversed merge. What they cover aren't congruent in terms of geography and timeframe. China covers the PRC and something else. Jeremy (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Some subcategories principally history and government require sorting out between PRC/ROC/Taiwan but (like Category:Sport in China by sport where most of the subcategories are just “China” already, with two exceptions) this can be merged immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 April 2012

• From what I observed sport articles and categories are usually different from other country categories. They depend on the naming schemes of IOC, FIFA, and other organisations. Jeffrey (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2012 (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.