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. MER-C 16:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Oaths of citizenship to Category:Oaths of allegiance

Nominator's rationale: 4 of the 7 articles are about oaths of allegiance. In many countries the oaths of citizenship are called oaths of allegiance. The distinction doesnt seem to be helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overlapping scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:28, 3 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: do not rename. MER-C 09:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are opposed speedies - Black Falcon points out that it's too complicated for a speedy treatment, and indeed may need to take in more categories. But mostly the form is "Fooish specialised law."

• Category:Property law of China to Category:Chinese property law
  • Category:Property law of Canada to Category:Canadian property law
  • Category:Property law in India to Category:Indian property law
  • Category:Property law of Ireland to Category:Irish property law
  • Category:Property law in Malaysia to Category:Malaysian property law
  • Category:Property law of New Zealand to Category:New Zealand property law
  • Category:Property law of Norway to Category:Norwegian property law
  • Category:Property law of Romania to Category:Romanian property law
  • Category:Property law of the United Kingdom to Category:United Kingdom property law
  • Category:Property law in the United States to Category:United States property law
  • Category:Real property law in the United States to Category:United States real property law

Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, what is the rationale? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Down with the tyranny of demonyms. The proposal is inferior. Does Irish property law include Northern Ireland or is it confined to the Republic of Ireland? The current name suggests the RoI; the proposed name could mean either or both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is generally thought desirable to have a common pattern. I'm not deeply committed to this pattern, but it is the pattern for the vast majority of similar categories. So, for example we have Category:Irish business law, Category:Irish constitutional law, and Category:Irish criminal law. We do also have Category:Environmental law in Ireland, but at least all the environmental law categories are alike, while Category:Family law by country is a mixture. Should we standardise them all? I cant see any obvious reason for the differences, except possibly Category:Law about religion by country, because "Religious law" might be misinterpreted. I was thinking of setting up some more country categories, because I think legal articles generally need to be attached to the relevant country. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support just because of consistency with what is around now. But actually I would have preferred the "of country" format for the entire law tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm coming to the view that the proffering of "consistency" as a rationale must only be accepted if the proposer can also affirm that the proposal would also result in a solution that is superior to the status quo. Where the proposal would result in a solution that is demonstrably inferior (e.g. by introducing ambiguities), then it should be rejected, even in the face of an extensive category structure that has the consistently inferior form. Let the healing start now, let the reform of the inferior category structure start with the proposal in front of you; let us not be bound by bad precedents just for the sake of a slavish, pedantic adherence to "consistency". When it's broke, fix it.Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to renaming all the relevant categories to be like "Specialist law of Foo", but there are a lot of them. I'd like to hear arguments on both side. Certainly lawyers seem to talk more about Fooish law than the law of Foo. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and change the 'Fooish' ones. It's rather like changing 'Fooish companies' to 'companies based in Foo'. We have Roman law and British law but these are practised far away from Rome and the UK. Oculi (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as British law. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose these are clearly linked to spacific polities and the of formation makes this more clear. Plus any renaming as proposed here would need to use "American".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose property law is set at national level so makes sense to use the country name rather than the name of the people. SFB 12:18, 15 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Apollon Ladies players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Apollon Ladies F.C. players Joeykai (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Nominator Joeykai has not given any rationale for removing the contents from the hierarchy, which is what happens with deletion. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete, technically merge and delete will have the same effect because nominator already added the article to the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 5 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 16:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who fight USA-centrism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has a narrow, ill-defined scope—unsurprising, really, given its scope is tailored to a userbox. While addressing systemic bias is generally commendable, there is no value in a category that accounts for one particular instance (admittedly, the most common one) of it and excludes all others. Category:Wikipedians who fix systemic bias, or similar, would be more encompassing, but what is the use of a category that merely proclaims its members' adherence to good editing practices? To the extent this activity needs a user category, there is Category:WikiProject Countering systemic bias members for those who participate in the WikiProject. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Gjs238) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, while a userbox may be okay, a category does not serve a conceivable purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 2 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Jungle warfare training facilities. MER-C 09:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Military jungle schools to Category:Jungle warfare training facilities or Category:Jungle warfare training schools

Nominator's rationale: Jungle warfare training is a specialized form of military training, so I do not doubt that this category groups articles based on a defining characteristic. However, I am not sure if it is perhaps premature, given the absence of Category:Jungle warfare and Category:Jungle warfare training. For now, we should at least rename it to a clearer name that is consistent with Category:Military training facilities (I'm at a loss what to do with the other parent). (Pining the category's creator, User:Apokrif) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps Category:Jungle warfare could be created (Jungle warfare already exists). Apokrif (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Potentially, if there is enough content to support a distinct topic category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I understand the rationale. Why would replacing "military" in the category name by "warfare" be an improvement? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Jungle warfare is a type of warfare, and either of the proposed titles would describe training facilities (or schools) that specialize in jungle warfare. The current title cannot be clearly parsed as neither 'military jungle' schools nor military 'jungle schools' makes sense. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, got it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to the facilities category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to facilities. I don't see an issue with having this category separate from a proposed jungle warfare one, which could include battle operations etc. SFB 12:21, 15 September 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians from Banbury to Category:Wikipedians in Banbury, or delete

Nominator's rationale: We categorize editors by location (place of residence), not by place of birth or former association. The former type of categorization has the potential to facilitate encyclopedic collaboration (e.g. for requested photographs) whereas the latter does not and tends toward social networking. In this particular case, all five editors in the category use ((User Oxfordshire)) and are in Category:Wikipedians in Oxfordshire, so it is likely that this "from" category is simply misnamed and should be renamed to "in". If that assumption is unfounded, then the category ought to be deleted. (Pinging the category's members: User:Geniussansom, User:Noface1, User:Redrose64, User:Thatperson, and User:Tommy23.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Wikipedians in Banbury". Banbury is big enough to warrant its own Wikipedian category (FWIW, if it was "from" I could very nearly put myself in the category, having once lived just outside Banbury). Grutness...wha? 04:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I was born in Banbury, but never lived there, although my mother now does. I'm "from" a lot of places. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, of course - the Oxfordshire railway guy :) Greeting from an ex-Croughton resident! Grutness...wha? 04:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. SFB 12:20, 15 September 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.