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 as propsed, per the convention of Category:Filipino people. Bencherlite^Talk 12:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of Philippine politicians to Category:Lists of Filipino politicians

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The motivation "duplicate" is a misnomer. The Category:Lists of Philippine politicians has existed since 2007, and has been edited by e.g. BrownHairedGirl. The category Category:Lists of Filipino politicians was created last Thursday, by BrownHairedGirl, who now proposes a "merge". In reality, this is a question of whether or not to change the name of the category, from "Phillipine" to "Filipino"; and I think that BrownHairedGirl should have made this clear in her motivation.

As for the real issue - which term is the better of "Philippine" and "Filipino" - I do not have very striong opinions, since I'm not a native English speaker (as are you). The Oxford English Dictionary give both forms; but not as quite equal. The definition of the noun Filipino according to the OED (which is quoted for its factual content only; the formulation should be (C) OED and cannot be directly employed by us) is

A native or inhabitant of the Philippine islands, especially one of Spanish or mixed blood.

I'm actually not completely happy with this. If indeed the meaning "especially one of Spanish or mixed blood" still is valid, the term "Philippine" could be considered as a more neutral term (without racial connotations). (OED also notes that Filipino is the Spanish masculine form of the word, and that it sometimes also in English is replaced by Filipina when applied to a woman.)

However, consistency is more important. There seems to be quite a number of categories named "...Filipino..."; whence either this category name also should be changed in the manner BrownHairedGirl suggests, or all the others should be changed to "...Philippine...". The latter of course should not be done without a consensus from the people working on the Philippines related articles,.

Thus, I'm happy with either solution - provided that it is consistent and does not grossly upset consensus. In practice, I suppose that this will mean replacing the old category name by BrownHairedGirl's new one (even if that might mean something slightly less neutral). JoergenB (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Joergen, I'm sorry. I should have disclosed that I created the new category, but was in a hurry and didn't think it would be an issue. However, I can see how it looks bad :(

  I created it because I was unaware of the existence of the Category:Lists of Philippine politicians, and I only discovered it today. The version I found was nowhere under Category:Philippines-related lists, which I was cleaning up. Once I found that the Philippine politicians, I could see that there was no point in having a duplicate, so I proposed merger ... and I'd be equally happy with a merge in the other direction is that is preferred. I have no particular opinion on whether Filipino or Philippine is the better adjective, other than to note that this is one of a number of subcats of Category:Filipino people. Whatever termilogy we use for categoring people from the Philippines should be consistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. In Wikipedia we have always used "Filipino" to represent nationals of the Phillipines. It is meant to encompass everyone regardless of ancestry. I have to say I cringe at the anachronistic talk of "mixed blood".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  John Pack Lambert: I agree as regards the formulations. Note, however, that this is a direct quotation of the on-line edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. You may complain to them about the "mixed blood" formulation; the real issue, however, is whether or not "Filipino" still is supposed to exclude Philippines without at least a partial European ancestry by some people.

BrownHairedGirl, I owe you an apology. I looked quickly at the history and saw a handful of edits of yours; I should have noted that they all are quite recent. JoergenB (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joergen. I should not have made such a terse nomination, because at first glance it did appear as you saw it; my fault for not providing the fuller explanation which was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment throughout wikipedia we always use the term "Filipino" to mean any national of the Phillipines without regard to ethnic heritage. If someone things this is the wrong approach, they should start at the top of the tree with Category:Filipino people, not attack some obscure minore category in the tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's own article on Filipino people states "The Filipino people or Filipinos are an Austronesian ethnic group native to the islands of the Philippines. There are about 104 million Filipinos in the Philippines". That is interesting since the article on the Phillipines gives their 2010 population at 92 million. That article says that Filipino is the denonym for residents of the Phillipines. As used in wikipedia Filipino alone means someone from the Phillipines as Spaniard means someone from Spain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Has someone been "attacking some obscure minor category in the tree"? In that case, who? Did you read what I had written about the importance of consistency, before adding your comment?

If you feel that I was "attacking some obscure minor category", when I created the Category:Lists of Philippine politicians in 2007, I can assure you that my only intent was to make a category containing one or a couple of Philippine politicians. I do not remember the details, but I think that I didn't see any "Filipino"-named categories at that time. This may be my mistake (or there were less such categories around, then). On the other hand, I probably consulted OED or COD, since that is what I usually do when trying to figure out correct English terms. Best, JoergenB (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joergen, I'm sure that you created the category in good faith, and the name you chose was perfectly reasonable. There may be a case for renaming Category:Filipino people and all its subcats to Category:Philippine people, but whatever form we use should be applied consistently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably reverse merge; if not merge. I can conceive of a Filipino who is involved in politics elsewhere, or even a non-Filipino invovled in the politics of the Phillipines; unlikely perhpas, since the right to vote tends to go with nationality rathe than residence, but not impossible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is these two terms mean the same thing. Either list is equally as likely to be used in ways that we really do not want it to be. The fact is that virtually in all other categories we use the term Filipino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 30 October 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 both per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

Category:Electrabel nuclear power plants to Category:Electrabel nuclear power stations

Category:Vattenfall nuclear power plants to Category:Vattenfall nuclear power stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with power stations categories naming convention which uses 'station' instead of 'plant' (with exceptions only US and some other countries categories. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 26 October 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:Juventus F.C. players. Bencherlite^Talk 12:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Juventus Primavera players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is a category for youth players for a football club, but consensus at WT:FOOTY holds that such categories are obsolete as all eligible players should be included in the more general Category:Juventus F.C. players instead. GiantSnowman 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - that and also the REAL MADRID JUVENIL FOOTBALLERS one (the only two that exist that i know of). --AL (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is Real Madrid Juvenil footballers , must delete too if all insist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juventus21 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the outcome of this CFD, I will also nominate Category:Real Madrid Juvenil footballers. GiantSnowman 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Juventus F.C. players. No prob with removing the category, but it needs to be upmerged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it already is... GiantSnowman 12:39, 29 October 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Google employees to Category:Google employees

Nominator's rationale: Per long standing precedent that we don't divide into "current" and "former" categories, as the creation of this category has effectively made the parent "Current Google employees" Courcelles 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know there was "long standing precedent". Given the spirit of the WP:BLP policy, it seems we might be doing people a disservice if we don't split them off into former subcategories. The natural implication of the sentence "x is a Google employee" is that x is a current Google employee. The category system is thus misleading people and given that someone might be harmed by being said to be an employee of a company they no longer are, there's WP:BLP concerns with that. So, if there is a long standing precedent, I'd say we ought to change that. If the community disagrees with this eminently reasonable view of mine, then I would suggest my other categorisations today, Category:Former Twitter employees and Category:Former Yahoo! employees, should probably disappear also. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd add also that if there is a long standing precedent against former employee categories, and we uphold it, we should probably mention that on Wikipedia:Categorization of people#By association. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – Category:Google employees is for "Current and former employees of Google Inc." People categories are not divided into current/former subcats. Oculi (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like "performer by performance" type categorization that is best served by lists and not categories. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge we do not split out people into current and former cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge we do not split categories of employees into "former" (whether retired, moved on voluntarily or involuntarily, or deceased) and "present", and the article text should make it clear what the employment status is; I don't see a BLP problem here. Bencherlite^Talk 17:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge categories are permanent - if it is defining for someone to work at Google, it's defining that they did work there too. Sports teams are the obvious analogy here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment possibly a better analogy would be something like Category:Columbia University faculty. I run in terror if someone tries to seperate out present and former in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 26 October 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 both to Category:Governors of provinces of Afghanistan. I deleted the "the" to match the list.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Afghan governors to Category:Governors of the provinces of Afghanistan
• Propose merging Category:Afghan governors by province to Category:Governors of the provinces of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: I found these categories yesterday, and did some tidying up. I created a Category:Lists of governors of provinces of Afghanistan for the list, and a created+populated a Governors of Foo Province sub-category for each province.

I propose renaming Category:Afghan governors to clarify that its scope is the governors of the Provinces of Afghanistan. That would allow the removal of Azim Khan, who was a governor of Kashmir.

I can't see any point in keeping the sub-category. If populated, it would simply empty Category:Afghan governors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Afghanistan has been notified. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to make it clear the issue is what they govern, not their nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the current name is weak, but it has many counterparts like Category:Mexican state governors, Category:Iranian governors, etc. and it would be nice to consider them together. There are several other competing formats as well:
  1. Foos of Slobovian bars, e.g. Category:Governors of Japanese prefectures, Category:Chief ministers of Indian states
  2. Barian foos of Slobovia, e.g. Category:County governors of Sweden, Category:State agriculture commissioners in the United States
  3. Foos of bar of Slobovia, e.g. Category:Heads of the federal subjects of Russia. Actually, other than the universal Mayors of places in X, this was the only example of this format I could find.

Personally, I think "Provincial governors in Afghanistan" works the best, but that may be bias because that is the typical formulation for state and local officials in the U.S. (i.e. state governors, never governors of states), so I am neutral on this one. Given the wide variety of political structures over history, of course, a universal standard may not be easily found in this space.- choster (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would also support moving the category to Category:Governors of the states of the United States. This is in my mind the most accurate description of the contents of the category. I am really not sure state governors/governors of the states make much different, but I think the latter just works better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Provincial Governors in Afghanistan as a better form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 29 October 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) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Billboard Pop Songs number-one singles to Category:Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) number-one singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose rename to match the article name, Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs); to be consistent with the recommendation in WP:CHARTS to use the exact name of the article in chart tables; and because Billboard uses both chart names interchangeably. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 26 October 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) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Robert Rich ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 3 November 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) 22:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Amon Amarth (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Child categories for images and album covers aren't enough to warrant eponymous categories, which should be a way to sort through articles related to the band. Since the only articles here are albums, this eponymous parent is unnecessary. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 26 October 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) 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Images of Amon Amarth (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Two images to be copied to Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have now moved both images over to Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 26 October 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: Opposed - jc37 01:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tobacco in New Zealand to Category:Smoking in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: more approp given the contents -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current title fits the convention of Category:Tobacco by country, which has 36 sub-cats all named Category:Tobacco in Foo County. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the new name will fit the convention at Category:Smoking by country which has nine sub-cats and 29 pages . At some point in the future there may be room for Category:Tobacco in New Zealand but at this stage we don't even have a Tobacco in New Zealand article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have made the same mistake that I made further up this page, of assuming in good faith that some of the context need not be explained, and thereby finding some confusion resulting.

I was not aware of Category:Smoking by country, which appears to have mostly been crated by you. Probably a good idea to have it, but it's odd that you didn't just create Category:Smoking in New Zealand as a parent to Category:Tobacco in New Zealand, because Category:Smoking by country is a parent to Category:Tobacco by country. I would be happy to support an upmerge in that case, but simply renaming the tobacco category will create a Smoking category which is wrongly parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not to keen on both categories existing at present (sort of per WP:SMALLCAT). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the history of tobacco in New Zealand is not restricted to smoking it. It was used as currency by early explorers (e.g. J.C. Bidwill's Rambles in New Zealand), and it was a major cash crop in the Nelson region. While it is illegal now to import (or to manufacture) chewing tobacco, this was certainly done in the past. The smoking category should be a sub-category to the tobacco category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an NZer (but non-smoking!) I am quite aware of the history of the tobacco industry in my country, but that history is not a reason to have a category for the topic. There is, however, a need for a Tobacco in New Zealand article (currently a redir to smoking after I created it) but a having a category is premature at this stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the smoking categories only deal with tobacco they belong under the tobacco categories. If they are ever broadened to include THC, meth, &c., then they become a sister category tree. Renaming or merging is not appropriate. [Roll on 2025 when we (NZ) become completely tobacco free.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - with one or two articles for most countrues, no need for a seperate "smoking by country" category. Hugo999 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category structure for smoking by country so NZ should be added to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am subject to a topic ban on category related edits. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive240#Topic_ban_for_Alan_Liefting. I had completely forgotten about it when I created this CfD and the ban is of unclear definition. I have no idea what the next step is here. Withdraw? Let it run its course? It is up to the community of course. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't see why this nomination should be recused. Seems good faith to me. Perhaps it's time to appeal for the topic ban to be lifted. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lifted? It was imposed on the 17th after a previous one for 72 hours. But like you I see no harm in leaving this open. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since the two articles are about smoking, this probably should be renamed as proposed. The big problem here is someone really needs to go in an cleanup these categories. Smoking probably should not be under tobacco in the tree. Why? Simply put, there are many things that are smoked including cannabis, opium, hash, methamphetamine and phencyclidine and who knows what else. Then there are those electronic cigarettes, are they smoking? So what really goes in smoking and should the current categories be renamed to Category:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand to remove the ambiguity and the rest of the tree cleaned up to follow. As to the tobacco categories. Right now they appear to be limited to smoking. But this is an incomplete view. As pointed out above, growing tobacco is a major industry in several countries. Also tobacco is not only smoked, it is chewed and used in some other ways. And this is my view limited to western culture. If we add in a worldwide view, I don't know how this would expand. One could also argue that a good starting point for cleanup could be to upmerge all of the smoking categories to the tobacco ones. Then sub-categorize in an unambiguous and planned manner. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the general subject is tobacco. If people want to create a sub-cat they can, but there is no reason to rename the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose tobacco need not be smoked, but can be chewed (for example). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the two articles are about smoking. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A Category:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand category has now been created. I don't know if this is a good idea. It is generally assumed that smoking is the smoking of tobacco. Also, the article goes against convention. See Category:Smoking by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as one general category Category:Tobacco in New Zealand is adequate for all the articles on the subject. No Smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—at best the smoking by country tree is a sister tree to the tobacco by country tree and the two should not be conflated or merged. The list of substances being smoked in NZ seems to be growing by the week. In the course of my work in the past month or so I've seen documentation of cannabis, methamphetamine, tobacco, datura, betel, KRONIC (synthetic cannabis), grass clippings, toilet paper and a cane chair being smoked. Renaming tobacco to smoking is not appropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• still Oppose There are two New Zealand articles, so one category should be more than enough. The articles relate to the advertising, sale and purchase, and smoking of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes. Category:Tobacco in New Zealand (and one similar category for other countries) is adequate for the subject. Hugo999 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 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.