The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The change of the parent category from "Health care" to "Healthcare" is proposed because "Healthcare" is a recognised noun and when spoken is spoken as one word not two e.g. "Healthcare in Australia" would be spoken without a pause between health and care. The majority of the country subcategories e.g. Category:Healthcare in Australia use one word apart from the 4 or 5 countries below (15 out of 20)
Procedural oppose. The article and category have been flipping back and forth between "healthcare" and "health care" for years, because people have passionate but honest disagreement about which form should be preferred. Ideally, it would be better if we could find some compromise term which avoids having to continually argue over whether there should be a space between the "health" and "care" elements or not — but whatever is decided, the categories should follow the same spelling as the head article does, and the RM discussion on the article was closed no consensus. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we might depart from the rule that we follow the main article in the spelling of the category? The category system is scattered with both spellings. There is no logic to it, and I doubt if anyone actually cares about it. I cant say that I care much which we use. But having two different spellings with no reason at all is a nuisance. And, for what it is worth, my impression is that in literature about the topic, businesses etc. there is a slow move towards using one word, especially in information technology. There are certainly a lot more than 7 categories affected. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: First off, really bad name. The apparent intended meaning was something like "Terminology in Christian theology", because it is a subcategory of Category:Christian theology(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all except for (ironically) Religious exclusivism are stubs that are solely within the scope of Christianity and its denominations. Not only that, the current title of the category is singular, against convention.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this topic is relevant to the whole AfC project. Might be better off as a historical page in the project namespace. Flooded with them hundreds08:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I can't comment on whether my range block was related to any specific SPI case, because I made it based on CU data. I will say it wasn't based on logged-out edits, though. It was primarily to block account creation on the range. ~ Rob13Talk14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the 1945 Canadian federal election[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: As with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_23#Category:Liberal_Party_of_Canada_candidates_in_the_1867_Canadian_federal_election and other past examples, this represents an overly granular distinction for the level of notability that it actually entails. We don't categorize actual Members of Parliament by which individual sessions of parliament they sat in or which individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize candidates more specifically than we do the actual winners. Further, this creates a significant degree of category bloat, since candidates often do not run just once but frequently try again once or several more times in subsequent elections — and since having been a non-winning candidate for Parliament is not a notability claim in and of itself, but rather people only have articles to file in here if they already had preexisting notability for another reason (e.g. provincial MLAs), it results in most of the categories being unnecessary WP:SMALLCATs with just a handful of entries. Note that I am aware that some parallel categories still exist for other political parties as well — there are far too many to tackle in one batch, so I've been tackling it in pieces one party at a time. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (just) candidates should not be categorized as such (they are merely politicians), and actual MPs are sufficiently categorized anyway. (If there is no consensus to delete then the merge nomination is the next best thing to do.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anti-war protests in the United Kingdom[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. While there is a pretty clear consensus these categories should be upmerged, one key question is unclear: should the anti-nuclear movement as a whole, or only the anti–nuclear weapons movement, be considered part of the peace movement? As this discussion has become stale, I recommend renominating these categories in a way that recognizes the need to merge the contents to at least one parent category. -- Black Falcon(talk)01:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal aims to remove the category layer Peace movement between Pacifism and Social movements on the one hand and Anti-nuclear movement on the other hand. The layer Peace movement just by itself is almost empty so the idea of the nomination makes perfect sense. However, more merge targets need to be specified in order to ensure that the content remains in the Pacifism and Social movement tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2018 (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.
Oppose The category is currently broader than Photometry (optics) is. The different meanings of "Photometry" that are covered on the disambiguation page are all related to one another, and the category covers the broader topic. We should not rename the category simply to match the article title. If the category is to be renamed, it should be because there is a consensus to narrow the category's scope.--Srleffler (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Egyptian Premier League footballers[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that "footballers" is the correct word to use here. "Players" is more suitable in my opinion and is used in other leagues' categories. I originally moved it by myself but it was reverted after less than five minutes. Ben5218 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (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 as nominated, without prejudice to recreating if/when there is more content to support categorization by city. It is important to remember that, just because one or two articles are in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that "category A and B" has to be created. Looking through a sample of the nominated categories, it is apparent that a significant number of Roman Catholic churches in X categories were inappropriately/prematurely fully diffused by city, even if the category contained far too few articles to warrant subcategories. -- Black Falcon(talk)01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging most though I question somewhat the inclusion of some of them. I also think that you could have chosen more specific church categories. I'll expand later. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - most of the cities such as Auckland, Tulsa, Tiblisi, etc. are quite large and it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect that there either other articles on churches that are of the catholic denomination either out there or that could be created, therefore WP:SMALLCAT is not applicable. Also these more specific articles help prevent clutter, both from having too many articles in 1 category, and having 2 categories in the same article when 1 specific one could do the job just as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are a number of different objections and I'll counter them one by one:
In Auckland 13% of the population consists of Catholics. In Georgia (Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia) 84% of the population is Orthodox and Catholicism is one of many minorities. Tulsa is part of a Protestant Bible belt. In neither of these cities we can expect to have a large number of notable Catholic church buildings.
Having too many articles in 1 category is not an issue here.
Having 2 categories in the same article when 1 specific one could do the job just as well is a poor argument. If we would just want to have as little category designations in an article as possible, every article would simply have its own category. The idea of categories however is that you find a reasonable number of related articles easily.
To counter your first point, according to google maps there are 20 churches of the catholic denomination in Tulsa, 5 in Tiblisi, and over 40 in the Auckland area. Sure not all these buildings will be notable by Wikipedia standards, but there is a potential for growth here and therefore WP:SMALLCAT is not applicable. Also many of the categories you have nominated are located in countries with more substantial Catholic populations, such as France, Germany, etc. And lastly saying that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X is a poor argument. Anglicans make up a rather small percentage of the total religious population of the United States, but we still have many articles on church buildings of the Anglican denomination because their articles tend to be notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is really about the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT. The way I understand it, which is confirmed by the example given, is that there should always be a substantive reason for growth: with a political office, other people will take that office for sure. Extrapolating this to churches in the nominated categories, a substantive reason for growth would be if every few years a new Catholic church is being built in the above cities - but that is not actually the case. Reversing the argument: if there would be no need to provide a substantive reason for growth, one could claim growth potential for really every category and WP:SMALLCAT would become a dead letter. Just numbers don't say anything, because they do not provide any insight in the degree of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I didn't mean to say that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X; instead I meant to say that not having a substantial population is an obvious predictor for not having many notable buildings (not a perfect predictor, but an obvious predictor). Finally, I'm not sure I get your last point. If you mean Anglican including Episcopalian then a substantial part of the US population belongs to it, but if you mean Anglican excluding Episcopalian then there aren't many churches at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with no prejudice against re-creation if more articles are created. A few cities (Augsburg, Vancouver) are a bit surprising to be here, others should clearly be upmerged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While many examples may look unpopulated at this time, the precision of the categories is helpful in many ways in many contexts. Luckily, it's free having categories that are helpful and might also be more used and populated with time. Also, support rename per Johnpacklambert. PPEMES (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a high navigational cost of zig-zagging up and down a category tree to find article in under-populated categories. No objection to recreating any if they ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party politicians[edit]
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.
For example here. The fact that an abbreviation is being added for Druk Phuensum Tshogpa also indicates that Druk Phuensum Tshogpa is the official name. Anyway there would be no point in using another common name in English if Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party (as an English name) would have been the official name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article still uses the English name. This is an English-lanaguage publication, and a few hundred books have been printed that use the English name. Wikipedia does not follow official names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To clarify the scope of these categories (Mediterranean redirects to Mediterranean Sea, but the text of these categories states that they are about the wider region).
Note: Deletion (with some upmerging) could also be considered as most of the articles in these categories are well categorized by continent/sea and other categories (e.g. Category:Plants of Mediterranean climate). This applies especially to the flora category as this region is not in the relevant wikiproject's scheme. Note: Currently this is such a mess that, for example, Chamois is (via intermediate categories) in Category:Marine organisms.
I'd prefer delete to rename (mainly as this region isn't clearly defined and overlaps other regions). Of the subcats/articles I've looked at none would need an upmerge. DexDor(talk)22:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for Flora; as noted by Hike395, this category does not follow the WGSRPD which is used for plant distributions. I don't know whether the Fauna category is of any value; if it is, I agree that the nominator's suggested name is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flora of the Mediterranean per WikiProject Plants recommendations for geographic distribution categories. Also agree that Mediterranean Basin would be a better name for a fauna category if that is retained –Hyperik⌜talk⌟15:50, 17 December 2018 (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.
Comment by creator. I created this only to fill a redlink in Special:WantedCategories. Now that the massive backlog at SWC has been clearly, I devote a little more time to scrutinising such cats, and I might not have created this one if I had done so. So I am happy to accept the nominator's assessment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 16 December 2018 (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.