< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

Category:Films about healthcare

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 (ie, move back). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match both the parent category and documentary film subcat. The reason I didn't take this to WP:CFDS is I see that that another editor applied to a Cfd tag to Category:Documentary films about health care but didn't know how to actually create the Cfd, it seems. And looking at the edit history -- something about "promoting minority styling," whatever that means -- this is clearly not unopposed. Tho the rename seems to me to be obvious per X of Y. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From previous discussions I have concluded that it is pointless to try to standardise either way. Both "Healthcare" and "Health care" are in common use, with no distinction, and often in the same paragraph.Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:C2C and WP:C2D would differ with you there. When you have a main article, parent category and sub-category all aligned one way, it seems arbitrary and rather pointless to me to have a nested mid-level category spelled a different way. But clearly you disagree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the regional thing -- and I don't wish to be labour this -- but I notice Rathfelder that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, "whose main goal is to organise and bring clarity to the vast number of articles on Wikipedia related to the United Kingdom's National Health Service," whose WP:LEAD begins: "Each of the four countries of the United Kingdom has a publicly funded health care system" -- note the spelling. So if I understand correctly, not only haven't you addressed the main article Health care, you haven't even managed (or even tried?) to get the UK article to reflect your preference, though you worked on it as recently as Feb. 2. You're attempting to use the category system to address a personal preference that you don't seem to have tried to implement in the most basic way at the article level, even in your own Wikiproject. Or perhaps you did, and it was rejected by other editors? I did see that back in December -- at the time you attempted this out-of-process move -- you did change the lead to Publicly funded health care, to reflect your preference, with the edit summary "There is a plan to make usage more consistent across the encyclopedia - including renaming this article." Yet the plan is yours, unilaterally. For example you moved Single-payer healthcare to its new name in December with no discussion whatsoever. I think WP:Trout most definitely applies here, for the way you've gone about this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 31 March 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:Led Zeppelin album track list templates

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) 09:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, should be upmerged into Category:Album track list templates. I tried to do this once, but Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars reverted by upmerge, so taking it here for discussion. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 29 March 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:Regional dishes of the United States

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Re-nominating this, now that List of regional dishes of the United States has been well populated. (See previous CfD). The use of "regional", here meaning "associated with some unspecified region", is non-defining, a tad vague, and superfluous to the well-defined "Cuisine of X" categories (or the parent Category:American cuisine, for dishes belonging to cuisines lacking a category). Ibadibam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that every list that exists always has to have a directly corresponding category paired with it. There are some circumstances where a list and a category are both justified under the respective and non-identical rules governing the appropriateness of lists and categories, but there are many other situations where one form is justifiable and the other isn't. This is of the latter type. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 23 April 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:International 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. (there was another, but on inspection it didn't appear to be international. No obvious distinction between a society and an organisation or an association Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the CfD tag from the article to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 6 April 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:Classical Latin novelists

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 yet, in contrast to deletion of one parent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#Category:Roman-era_novelists. Note that the category nominated here remains a grand-child of Category:Ancient Roman writers via Classical Latin-language writers, and consistency with some of the others there might assist in gaining future consensus. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is anachronistic, as the novel as a genre is for the most part is held to date in the west from 1600 or so. Note that this would obviate the merger of Category:Roman-era novelists, which has this as its only member. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "fiction writer" is better than "novelist" and this rename basically resolves the anachronism issue. (Btw I think we may still merge this with the Greek category - then it becomes Category:Classical antique fiction writers). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the term "late antique", but am not clear what the appropriate term for Greek in 1-4 centuries AD is. If "classical antique" is the correct term, I would support that, but it is a discussion for another day: possibly one for the closing Admin to start. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 3 April 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:People from Pittsboro, Indiana

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 2 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:13, 29 March 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:Royal family orders

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:  Relisted at 2016 JUN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC and WP:USERG/WP:RS
Currently, this category doesn't aid navigation because it only contains 1 article: the poorly named Royal Family Order. I don't think populating the category is a good idea at this point because that article relies almost entirely on user generated citations from Blogspot, Pinterest and a royal fan page which is a weak foundation for a category. But, once the article is renamed and properly sourced, we can go from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Hipposcrashed as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, but that main article is based entirely on blogs and the accuracy of its claims are questioned on the talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 7 April 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.
More