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: Per the article Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways: these track gauges are to be considered similar, grouped as one. There is no use in separating them by exact measurement, and no need to mention the two rare ones in the title. Overview/details are in WP:TRAINS/track gauge: 2 ft and 600 mm. DePiep (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An article can cover both, because there is much in common. However structuring their navigation is best done as two separate sets. There is a strong national distinction between 600mm and 2 foot (610mm) systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the article combine them? And what with the other two (more rare) gauges, mentioned in the article's lead? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are most easily explained, given the current depth available, in a single article. This is not the case for caegorization, where there is an obvious value as a distinct navigation structure for each (and a supercat category would be useful too).
The current article is much too thin. There is scope to split that article, if developed, into 600mm and two foot gauges. There are a number of technical differences between them, stemming from their separate national origins and the different attitudes in each country to their appropriate function. However we are a long way from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Future article developments -- 'should be' is not an argument. And anyway, by then we can change the category accordingly. And, unanswered: this is about four gauges. Per the article, they can be grouped. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the opposition before dismissing it for the complete opposite of what it said. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How pedantic. I did read what you wrote about two gauges, after I mentioned four. I did read your claim to future improvements as an argument (current depth available, article is much too thin), so I replied to that.
All in all: I can take an argument, but this is more like a pedantic rebuttal. Just stop it, and we'll reach big endings. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've merged the four nominations into one. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Imperial measurements are not metric measurements, nor are metric measurements imperial measurements. The category structure was specifically set up to cater for whichever system is/was in use at the location the railway served. There is no need to combine the two. 600mm is similar to 2', but not the same. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re imperial and metric: Track gauge is a width quantity (ie, a length), and a length is not dependent on the unit describing it. Now with gauges, a single width may be defined (say by ordering companies) in imperial or metric, or even both (as standard gauge is). So, being defined in different units (imperial, metric), is exactly the argument that gauges can be the same width'. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not the same. They are similar, but not identical. I don't see any proposal to merge metre gauge with any near equivalent imperial gauge. Let's not mix apples and oranges please. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly replied to the "imperial/metric" part of your !vote. I know "feet" and "mm" are not the same, but "1524 mm" and "5 ft" gauges are. It is a rewriting of that very same existing gauge, these two are the same track gauge.
And I add, newly: even if the width of two gauges is not the same (whichever unit used), we can and do have them in one article. For example, see 5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only example I can see that meets your "1524mm" situation is 1435mm, which is of course standard gauge. That is the one gauge, designed originally in one system, which is now widespread, used and defined in the other system. This is not happened for any other gauge. Even when imperial systems are metricated, such as Russian gauge, we don't see a rational metric unit of 1500mm emerging from it, we see raw imperial units presented in metric, like 1524 and 1520mm.
We see 3 foot and 1000mm gauges, but they are not the same thing. They are rarely even seen in close proximity: when an imperial country chose a "two cubit" gauge they chose 3 foot, when a metric country addressed the same problem of geography, load and choice of supplier they bought 1000mm instead. The distinctions are historical, not dimensional. This is why they should be preserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not just sg. Track gauge documentation lists all 233 physical track widths enwiki uses today. Of these, twenty-five(!) are defined in both mm and ft,in. eg, 1,600 mm (5 ft 3 in). Now this is for same physical widths.
The article Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways even merges two nearly-same gauges (as Russian gauge 1524 mm & 1520 mm does). All this still does not explain why the article can combine them as similar, but a category can not. -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They are essentially the same gauge: 597-610mm. IN contrast a metre is more than three inches more than a yard, so that there would be little option to use or convert rolling stock between gauges. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if merged, the subcategories of the United Kingdom should also be nominated for merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm more convinced by Andy's arguments than by nominator's. DexDor(talk) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Workflow Scheduler System
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article and has no parent categories so is not (currently) performing any navigational purpose. If not deleted then it should be renamed (e.g. to something like Category:Workflow scheduler systems). DexDor(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a misunderstanding of how we use categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lydia Canaan
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that groups together a singer and 2 songs - that are all well connected by normal links between articles. Note: the category this was created with no parent categories. DexDor(talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that I made a mistake in creating this category. I don't oppose its deletion. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to such a category (assuming it has appropriate parents and contents), but not sure there's any advantage in creating it by renaming this category. DexDor(talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Lydia Canaan songs. A needed category that was overlooked. I am not certain if it fits the criteria for "speedy". Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:World War II battlefields
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 articles in this category are (with a few exceptions) not articles specifically about WWII - they are articles about towns, islands, buildings etc. E.g. the Duivelsberg article is about a hill - it mentions a battle in 1944, but that's a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic - do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles. Some of these are places that may be best known (at least amongst English-speakers) for their connection to WWII, but, for example, the El Alamein article is about the town - there's separate articles about the nearby battles. The articles in this category that are specifically about WWII (e.g., these) are in more appropriate WWII categories and there are also categories such as Category:World War II sites in Egypt.
If this category is intended for any place where there was fighting in WWII then it's massively incomplete - e.g. there's Kursk, Berlin and thousands of smaller places. Place-by-war categorization could put some articles (e.g. Paris) in many categories. Example of previous similar CFD. DexDor(talk) 20:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of "battlefield" has changed too much for it to be usable in this way for modern wars. There was a time when a battle would literally be fought on a field, but in the WWII era of tanks, planes and long-range artillery, many battles were sprawled out over a much wider era. The term "battlefield" is still used to indicate the "zone of combat", but it is really a misnomer for areas which are many orders of magnitude bigger than a field. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Battles are notable. We can easily categorize by their location, and even if some were fought in both world wars of the 20th century the categorization works. There is clear value to readers in having this. I fail to see an overlap with towns: we would be categorizing articles on the battles, not the towns (and if not, fix it). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I saw it, I just don't see that as a problem. Duivelsberg is a good example - there is no "Battle of Duivelsberg", but it is a location where significant fighting took place and it is name-checked in various histories. It's worth categorizing in a list under sites like this. Now "every inch of the low countries was fought over", but if a particular location can justify at least a credible section on its fighting (and Duivelsberg can), or a whole article, then it can justify listing here. Where there were multiple battles, we do tend to have articles like Battle of El Alamein. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, @Andy Dingley, you're not making sense. You wrote: we would be categorizing articles on the battles, not the towns (and if not, fix it) ... but the point here is that this category includes only the towns. If we were to "fix it" as you suggest, the categ woukd be empty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting that if we currently have a categorized article on the town, and unclearly why, then we address that, rather than just decategorizing. For Duivelsberg we might pull the fighting out into a named section. For El Alamein we could categorize the Battle of El Alamein set index rather than the El Alamein town article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we did that, we would still have a category of articles about towns. Duivelsberg was one of many areas of military operation during Operation Market Garden, and if we categorise all those areas as "battlefields" we would have the huge sprawling category which the nominator warned of. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have an extraordinarily extensive category tree for Category:Battles and operations of World War II, and if a particular battle should be missing, then a redirect can be created and/or an existing redirect can be categorized and tagged as ((R with possibilities)). As explained by DexDor and BrownHairedGirl, there is no point in categorizing all kinds of geographical articles that somehow were affected by a battle. In World War II, whole countries and regions were a battlefield, so if overstretched a bit, we might end up with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of "battlefields". --PanchoS (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to say why not delete all in Category:Battlefields, not just the WWII subcategory? Hugo999 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See RD's comment immediately above. Some of the battlefields categories (e.g. the Vietnam one) should be purged. DexDor(talk) 04:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while a battle sufficiently notable merits an article, they are categorized in the "battles" category tree. In World War II, lots of places in Continental Europe, were "battlefields" in that enemy troops went through or were repulsed, civilians were hauled off to be murdered, air raids rained bombs down upon them, and all sorts of other indicia of being a battlefield. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am far from sure that a battlefields (as opposed to a battles tree is useful; certainly not in the very modern period. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mathematical institutes and societies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Hard to see why these 2 categories need a subcategory of their own Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This follows from the distinction between Category:Scientific societies by subject and Category:Science organizations by topic. I don't see why mathematics should be a special case here. —Ruud 20:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Institutes
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. This discussion appears to have been quite constructive in refining ideas, but it hasn't reached an actual conclusion. Also, the category contents are reported to have changed significantly after the category was nominated, so this discussion is rather hard to follow. It has now been open for 5 weeks, so it has gone stale. I could relist it, but I think that any further discussion would best start as a clean slate, building on the work done here. So if anyone wants to open a new discussion about this category, feel free to do so without any need for the usual delay. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge to both parents, unnecessary and vague category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Categories should not be based on the titles organisations give themselves where they don't have a clear meaning which extends across national boundaries.Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed merge does not make any sense. I assume it should have read "Merge Category:Research organizations and Category:Academic institutions"? In that case: commercial research organizations are usually not academic institutions, some academic institutions are teaching only and do not do any research. —Ruud 20:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the situation now... Just delete Category:Institutes as an unnecessary middle-man. I don't think there is anything that needs to be merged here. —Ruud 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what a merge of two categories implies: all article in a particular category will be moved into another category. It is not merely a change of the parent category from one to another. —Ruud 12:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up all parent categories. I'm undecided on whether Category:Institutes should continue to exist or not, now. It should now definitely not be merged as proposed, however. —Ruud 12:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Institutes may be university departments or affiliated research institutions, or they may be private think-tanks that either actually do some research, or mainly advocacy, hiding their agenda behind some academic-sounding title. All in all, there's not much they have in common, besides being organizations with a thematic specialization and objective. Much better to be more specific. --PanchoS (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Ruud Koot, the category structure has significantly improved. One question left now is whether to keep or entirely delete the nominated category, without merging. I'm (still) inclined to say the category is too vague to keep and its content is rather based on shared name. @Rathfelder and PanchoS: What's your opinion in this new situation? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The situation has not dramatically changed, but I looked a bit deeper into Institution, Institution (disambiguation), Institute and Institute (disambiguation), and it seems like Category:Institutes was chosen as a WP:NATURALDISambiguation of "Institution (organization)", in contrast to "Institution (sociology)" which sociology people for some reason considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. IMO "Institution (organization)" constitutes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and shouldn't be WP:NATURALDISambiguated to Institute. Accordingly, the category should be renamed to Category:Institutions. This would change the situation quite a bit, as "institution" is not the kind of self-ascribed label that "institute" is. With a rename, we wouldn't categorize on the basis of a shared name anymore, but on the basis of what WP:RS consider an "institution". To move this forward, we'd have to improve the article situation first. I'm therefore suggesting a withdrawal now, and possible renomination at a later point. Hope this made sense to you. --PanchoS (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect you'll get this changed, because institution in its sociological meaning (institutions like marriage and law) is a well-established term. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is – I studied sociology myself to know. But most people aren't sociologists and tend to use institutions primarily for long-term formal organizations. However, we might want to alt rename the category to Category:Institutions (organization). In that case I'd be inclined to keep and further expand the category. While it doesn't look nice, it's just a top-level category, so should be precise rather than nice. --PanchoS (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Category:Formal organization would become a more appropriate category per main article Formal organization, however based on the article's content it looks like this would be a topic category rather than a set category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "Institutes" on its own being a meaningful category.Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a container only category -- The uses of the term are somewhat diverse, but it is a potential search term. In this context a container category can operate somewhat like a dab-page, enabling a user to select the particular application of the term that they want. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it might better become a category disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely pointless category. The only thing that defines an institute is being called an institute! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Industry
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. There seems to be some support for the principle involved, but no clear agreement amongst the participants on whether all the details are appropriate. Additionally, most of the categories appear to be untagged, so even if all the participants agreed on a course of action, that couldn't be taken as a community consensus. The nominator (PanchoS) obviously put a lot of work into constructing the list of categories and mergers, but unfortunately it's all a bit useless unless the next step of tagging is also done. Editors who don't have access to WP:AWB to do this themselves can ask at WP:BOTREQ, where there are plenty of helpful bot-owners who can do the job. This big set of changes all hinges on a few conceptual points set out in the nomination, and it occurs to me that it might be more productive to seek consensus on those principles before confronting editors with the full list of categories. The nom is obviously free to make another nomination (with all the tagging!) if they want to ... but it might be better to first open an RFC on the principles. Just a suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While anindustry is a sector or branch of the economy, the industry is usually equated with the manufacturing industry, as opposed to agriculture and fishing as the "first sector" of the economy, and the service industry as the "third sector". Therefore we have the almost eponymous category schemes Category:Industries and Category:Industry which is quite confusing, and IMHO unnecessary. At the same time we have a category tree Category:Manufacturing which has almost the same scope as Category:Industry does. While in theory, the two have slightly different connotations, in practice, articles are either in one, or in the other, or in both schemes, or altogether misplaced, belonging to (plural) Category:Industries. To solve these problems, I propose renaming Category:Industry to Category:Manufacturing industry per WP:NATURALDIS, and merging a good deal of its subcategories with their equivalents in Category:Manufacturing. Further restructuring would be referred to one or more specific followups. I don't want to rush through this major restructuring, so we can take our time to discuss my proposal. But before commenting, I would ask everybody to take a deep look into the categories and their content, and to think about what else might be the best way to solve the problems with the similarity, interchangeability, and redundancy of these categories. — Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Sorry, the co-nominated categories are still untagged. I will take care about that by tomorrow. The discussion may start anyway, though we might have to give it a day or two longer. --12:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support in principle for the sake of disambiguation, but child categories are still untagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but many of the categories may need purging of non-manufacturing content. Personally, I do not like the use applied to "industry" as an area of economic activity, such as insurance industry and fishing industry, but we need to ensure that any such content is removed to a dibbling or parent category. I suspect there will be a lot of follow-up needed to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "industry is usually equated with the manufacturing industry"? Is this a personal opinion or is it documented? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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:Courts by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename/keep so that they are all in the format "Courts of foo". It seems like there is consensus for consistency within these categories, and that there has been significant objections to using demonyms/adjective forms here due to ambiguity or inaccuracy. As far as using "in" vs. "of", the consensus is in favor of using "of". Regarding a potential upmerge, that question has been raised here but not resolved. If someone would like to propose that separately, there is no prejudice against that happening. --Tavix(talk) 02:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The other sub-cats (not listed above) use "Courts in". However, articles mostly go the other way: there are several articles beginning "Courts of"; most of the pages beginning "Courts in" are redirects. – FayenaticLondon 10:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Courts of foo gets my vote. "Northern Irish Courts" does not exist. There are courts in the Netherlands and Geneva that have nothing to do with those states, so "Courts in Switzerland" would be true but inaccurate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Australian, Greek and Lithuanian to "Courts of", following parents "Judiciaries of", and keep the Ireland ones. Upmerge Christmas and Cocos islands courts to all parents as WP:SMALLCAT. – FayenaticLondon 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed outcomes -- Where there is an acceptable demonym Fooish courts is acceptable. Elsewhere courts of foo (or in) will usually be acceptable. However international courts at the Hague and Geneva should not be labelled as if they were Dutch or Swiss (which would be misleading), so that "of" is preferable in those cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot understand this slavish adherance to demonyms. They have been demonstrated over and over again to be inaccurate in many cases. They should be dumped in favour of more accurate "of" names. Down with this sort of thing I say. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laurel Lodged. A rare thing, I know, but true here. These accursed demonyms are not only ambiguous; they frequently cause POV problems too. They should have been dumped years ago. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not "courts in foo" because of the existence of international courts, and I support one consistent solution for all (either "courts of foo" or "fooish courts"). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Courts of, because national or subnational courts are part of one specific country's legal system. Aside from the international courts, there are also national courts located in a different country, whether they deal with matters of extraterritoriality (see British Court for Japan) or military courts under the authority of an occupying or allied military; if we had an article about US military courts in South Korea, you wouldn't want it to be branded either "South Korean" or "in South Korea", because these aren't South Korean, and the location of a military court doesn't matter that much. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adjectival forms in all cases, because they are ambiguous. For some countries the situation is straightforward: they have only ever run courts in their own countries, and no other country has run courts in their territory. However, there are many situations where that simple 1-1 mapping does not apply, and we need a more precise language for those cases. Rather than have a mix of formats, let's use a consistent precise format, rather than allowing demonyms for cases which may appear to be uncontroversial. For most cases, I support "courts of foo" as precise and suitable; but we need some further way of categorising extraterritorial courts, such as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands and the British Court for Japan, both of which are "of Foo, but in Bar". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'comment': consistency is of the utmost importance to me, so if we could apply the same principle to other categories I would not hesitate to vote court of … However, it seems that if we vote to change the very few categories included in this wp:CfD it will only cause inconsistency, confusion and loss of community history. I am saying this because back in 2014 I was told by user:Good Ol’factory that "FOOian law" is standard for categories for U.S. law when that category tree was being constructed. Please don't take this personally, but I firmly believe that this meddling by a small number of editors in wp:CfD discussions are detrimental and do not lead to formation of consensus. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Category:City council elections in Italy
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:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 10:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Three times the same content. Unless we have separate articles on city council resp. mayoral elections in Italy, these are completely redundant. PanchoS (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The disadvantage of merging these categories is that the elections cannot be found in the mayoral elections category tree. Tim! (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn (by the nominator) per BrownHairedGirl. Convinced by your argument, I'd say, let's instead fix how the articles are actually categorized. --PanchoS (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, welcome back to CfD! --PanchoS (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Comedy horror films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To match the article horror comedy, and maintain consistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please take care the subcategories are renamed accordingly, here, in a followup or per WP:CFD/S. --PanchoS (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Scottish MEPs
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: (Nominating again following questionable result of last CfD and addressing concerns raised) These categories are misleading and incorrect. All the MEPs in these categories have been elected to represent either the Labour Party (UK) or the Conservative Party (UK). The Scottish parties are not separate independent parties. There is no need to split the Category:Labour Party (UK) MEPs or the respective Conservative Party categories by nationality. This is not done anywhere else within the category Category:Members of the European Parliament by party. All these MEPs sit with the Labour Party or Conservative Party in the European Parliament. An example is David Martin. He is in the category Scottish Labour Party MEPs. Yet his Parliamentary profile lists his party as Labour Party and his country as United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that the nominator has chosen to notify neither the creator of these categories (me), nor AFAICS any the relevant wikiprojects. If this was important enough to keep on asking again until you get the answer you want, it was important enough to do the notifications. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further objections: multiple editors at the previous CfD would only countenance merger if it was to all parent categories, but the nominator has again made a nomination to merge to a single parent in each case. His proposal would remove an important part of Category:Scottish Labour Party politicians/ Category:Scottish Conservative Party politicians. Most of his rationale would apply equally to Category:Scottish Labour Party MPs/ Category:Scottish Conservative Party politicians, but he has not made any suggestion for those. Within the UK, these major parties have these divisions for the constituent countries, and there are articles for Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Conservative Party which help to justify keeping the existing category hierarchies. These Scottish categories are sub-cats of Category:Labour Party (UK) MEPs etc, so they do not cause there to be too many direct members of Category:Members of the European Parliament by party. – FayenaticLondon 21:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose substantively, for several reasons:
The category titles may be read in two ways: as (Labour Party MEPs) who are Scottish, or as MEPs of the Scottish Labour Party. If the nominator wants to invalidate them, they will have to invalidate both meanings, but the nomination appears to address only the second (and, IMO, unsuccessfully).
The nominator fails to acknowledge the developing quasi-federal nature of the UK, in which Scottish politics is markedly different from that of the rest of the UK, particularly England. As a result, elections in Scotland are fought with a very Scottish focus, even when they are part of wider UK elections. Regardless of any debate about the precise status of these MEPs wrt their parties, these categories reflect that distinction.
Regardless of anything else, if the nominator objects to Wikipedia categorising these MEPs by their Scottish parties, maybe the nom should start by persuading the parties to stop claiming them, and then persuade the media to stop reporting them in that way. That's a perfectly legitimate aim for any political campaigner, but Wikipedia is not the place for the nominator to pursue a political campaign to derecognise the Scottish wings of these parties ... and until that political campaign succeeds, Wikipedia follows the sources.
Both Labour and the Conservatives have a fuzzily evolving-quasi-federal structure, in which their organisation is partly separate, their campaigns partly separate ... but in UK-wide bodies, their MPs and MEPs sit as members of the UK-wide party, without a separate Scottish whip. So long as the Scottish categories are sub-cats of the wider party categories, then there is no problem -- just as with Category:Labour Co-operative MPs, which is a subcat of Category:Labour Party (UK) MPs.
The nominator says that David Martin's Parliamentary profile lists his party as Labour Party and his country as United Kingdom ... which is only partly true. The listing actually says: National Political Party: Labour Party European Group: Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D) In other words, the question of party is complex, and multi-layered, which the nominator fails to acknowledge in that misrepresentation of the EUParl website.
This nomination is an attempt to impose a misleading simplification onto the complex, multi-layered reality of quasi-federal parties in a quasi-federal country within a quasi-federal EU. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply in detail to this when I'm not on mobile. Very disappointing you have resulted to misrepresentation of me and the nomination and the use of word games and red herrings, however. AusLondonder (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, AusLondonder. No red herrings, no word games, no misrepresentation ... just a complex reality, in which the current categorisation accommodates both a Scottish perspective of the difft parties and a UK-wide perspective, but from which you want to remove the Scottish perspective. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Total nonsense I'm afraid. I will discuss the non and the misrepresentations tomorrow at length. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it, but if you want anyone to believe that your accusation of "nonsense" is part of a reasoned argument rather than just abuse, you will have some hard work to do.
The Scottish Labour Party identifies its MEPs as Scottish Labour Party MEPs, and so does the media. The Scottish Conservative Party identifies its MEPs as Scottish Conservative Party MEPs, and so does the Scottish media. Those are the verifiable realities, per the evidence I posted above.
These categories reflect that reality. But since they are also subcats of the UK-wide categories, they accommodate the other part of the reality, which is that these MPs all take the whip of the UK-wide party.
So I look forward to your explanation of why you want to deprive readers of a category of Scottish Labour MEPs and Scottish Conservative MEPs, and how you claim that this proposed removal of a Scottish perspective is compatible with WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per the excellent reasons given by BrownHairedGirl. Being Scottish, or English, or Welsh, is entirely different to simply lumping someone, or a group of people, in to the fold of everybody else. It's just another attempt to try and racially dismiss entire countries so as not to upset those who don't define themselves as any of the three, but to instead, use the ambiguous "UK" label as a compromise. CassiantoTalk 08:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both proposed mergers. BrownHairedGirl articulates the reasons why these differentiated categories help to better represent a complex situation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Category:Labour Party MEPs for Scottish constituencies might be an acceptable outcome. "UK" is redundant as no member of another Labour Party is likely to be elected. However, Scots can be elected for English constituencies and vice versa, so that nationality (or ethnicity) is not likely to be a significant issue. I do not think I saw the previous nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.