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 merge. MER-C 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think these two are the same category in essence. I don't see the need for a split in this manner. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep just read the contents of the categories. Merging would create a complete mishmash--a mess that no reader could understand Hmains (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with each other, there is no way of knowing from the category names which categories you are going to find in them. Hmains gives this away by stating you have to look at the contents to see what they should be! This is a problem with all foo in a and b and foo in b and a categories. Tim! (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're container categories, so I guess they are only useful when scrolling through the contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- One is a list of decades; the other of countries. They may ultimately lead to the same destination, but they are differnet routes there. Though the sound similar they are distinct. Possibly "and" should be replaced by "then". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2015 (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:Abrahamic texts
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. – FayenaticLondon 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the actual content of this category does not match with the title and the header of the category, because the title and header assume there is overlap in texts of Abrahamic religions while the actual content entirely separates the texts by religion. One might argue that the content should be purged to match the current scope and name, but the latter means in practice that no content will be left because there aren't any texts that all Abrahamic religions have in common, so then the only thing left to do is to upmerge. A second issue is the fact that it is confusing to not have Christian, Jewish and Islamic texts as direct child cats of Religious texts, which will also be resolved by the proposed upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I do not think this is a useful split. I am not sure that Babi and Bahai are really Abrahamic anyway, and Islam only gives lip service to the authority of the Hebrew Bible. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2015 (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.
Hillary Clinton
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 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all The main article was moved to Hillary Clinton after lengthy discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. The categories should match the main articles but what should have been a straightforward speedy rename was opposed. Like the article the categories cover the whole life and career of the subject and should not retain the old article name. The claim these books are not by Hillary Clinton is clearly false; they are by the subject of the article (with or without ghost writers). CFD should not be RM round 2 for and we should not perpetuate inconsistency. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support all of these renamings except the second: Category:Books by Hillary Rodham Clinton. That second one should stay as-is, because all of her books were authored by HRC as opposed to HC. In contrast, she's written a bunch of newspaper columns as HC, and most books about her prefer HC in the title instead of HRC (putting aside juvenile literature).Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, I know the main article got renamed, but that doesn't mean everything else has to be. Nor do I think the discussion of all of these should be lumped together as the nominator has done. For the most blatant example, there are zero books by "Hillary Clinton"; all five, including one that sold over a million copies, have been published by "Hillary Rodham Clinton". The fact that she, like almost every politician or celebrity, used people to help her write these books is irrelevant and a red herring. She is responsible for their themes and content and clearly meant these to be published under a specific name. In terms of the overall category, there are several articles or categories within Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton that concern only Hillary Rodham, such as Hillary Rodham senior thesis or Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, and some that are likely to continue to use "Hillary Rodham Clinton" in their name. Like it or not, this person has done significant things in her life under "Hillary Rodham", "Hillary Clinton", and "Hillary Rodham Clinton", and the best overall category name that encompasses all these variations is the current one. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasted Time R: There are no books published by "Hillary Rodham Clinton". There are five books written by Hillary Rodham Clinton, but they were published by Simon & Schuster. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we should move all the Clinton articles to Simon and Schuster? Wasted Time can sometimes be a little bit [redacted], but I think he knows that the publisher was different from the author. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy on these. These are good faith listed by Timrollpickering but in my view are ill-considered. Yes, I know the main article got renamed, but that doesn't mean everything else has to be. For the most blatant example, there are zero books by "Hillary Clinton"; all five, including one that sold over a million copies, have been published by "Hillary Rodham Clinton". See Talk:List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 11 June 2015 for current opposition to this kind of renaming. Many of the books written about her have "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Hillary Rodham" in the title. In terms of the overall category, there are several articles or categories within Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton that concern only Hillary Rodham (pre- ever using 'Clinton') or that concern Hillary Rodham Clinton (such as the books one). Many of the images have descriptions that explicitly use the fuller form of her name. These rename proposals should be considered individually and not be speedied. The best overall category name that encompasses all the variations of Rodham and Clinton being used is the current one. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match the main article. kennethaw88 • talk 18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, i.e. including Category:Books by Hillary Rodham Clinton, for sake of consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral regarding the books category, (Reference to both "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Hillary Clinton" are used with a marginal preference for the former).
I think you'd have to propose that separately over at Wikimedia Commons, not here at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Removing the Rodham will mean that articles within the category that are correctly titled with Hillary Rodham alone - before she added Clinton to her name as Hillary Rodham Clinton, her name of choice for the last 30 years (not just "the old article name" as the nominator suggests) - will seem out of place and unclear. As WTR says above, she has had significant accomplishments under variations of her name, so the all-inclusive category should encompass them all for maximum clarity. Categories are supposed to help our readers navigate through the encyclopedia - there is no reason to remove Rodham from the category that encompasses articles about all stages of her life and career. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is referring to e.g. Hillary Rodham senior thesis. From the article the connection with the Clinton name is entirely clear, moreover it is clear that the thesis is only notable because of the Clinton connection. I don't think this is a strong argument to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - I agree with Tvoz. Neutralitytalk 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. Also standard practice when a person changes their name (I know that's not what happened here, but it is similar to what we're discussing). I don't buy the argument that people will be confused by it, or that HRC encompasses her more fully than the common name, HC. Jenks24 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole camp opposed to the use of Hillary Clinton essentially disregards the common name rule and seeks to oppose official name as the new standard in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2015 (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:Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
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 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Keep. Better than a list of all their members. This way we know non-existent articles aren't in there as well. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Me-123567-Me - that a list can include subjects for which there is (currently) no wp article (i.e. a list can have redlinks) is normally considered an advantage of a list. DexDor(talk) 04:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- like all the other association membership categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (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:Reptiles of Finland
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. – FayenaticLondon 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per precedents in many previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2015 (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:Endangered species of the British Isles
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. North America1000 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Endangered species of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Comment: The talk page had no categories until I just added them, so it will only now appear in relevant projects' Alerts. I suggest allowing at least another week before closing. – FayenaticLondon 18:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that the British Isles has endangered species is significant for the country, its habitats and the species which struggle to exist there (and only some of which are migratory). The advantage of using a category over a list is its flexibility. Thus the species defined by a Biodiversity Steering Group at a particular time makes a useful list. A category enables more items to be added. Ephebi (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies NONDEF. Article and reliable sources have been written about the subject. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not sufficient for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geographic regions are directly related to the subjects' endangerment and to such things as their legal protection, their range, their habitat, etc., which is why we have no problem with categories like [[Category: Fauna of Australia]] or [[Category: Marine fauna of North America]]. Academic, news (and Wikipedia) articles commonly talk about species in terms like "An endangered British insect...". Especially for small-habitat endemics (which are much more likely to be endangered), it is natural to start a lede by saying where it comes from. The IUCN Red List listings start off with taxonomic info, then assessment information (endangerment category and the sources that they used to categorize it), then geographical information, so they seem think of it as fairly defining. I recently started an article with "Lygodactylus williamsi is a critically-endangered species of lizard, endemic to a small area of Tanzania." These seemed to me to be defining traits. Its position on the IUCN red list and its taxonomic position are uncontroversial categories; the location in which it is endangered seems like it should also be a category. It's a large intersection, and similar intersections can be made for related biogeographical catagories ("Endangered species of Wallacea", or 'Endangered species of Sub-saharan Africa", for instance). Finally, it seems like an encyclopedic category that Wikipedians would use, especially as people have written articles on the subject of the category. HLHJ (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The House Sparrow article, for example, says "it is widespread and abundant... The animal's conservation status is listed as least concern...". The distribution (just the native range) of that species includes the whole of Europe and much of Asia. Thus, being endangered in Britain is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that species. That species does not belong in Category:Endangered species and does not belong in any category that is specific to the British Isles (unless we categorize it in a way that means it could be in dozens of other country categories).
Your lizard example is totally different - if the lizard is endemic to Tanzania and is endangered (globally) then it's reasonable to categorize it under endangered species, endemic species of Tanzania etc. DexDor(talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (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.