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 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per below. I do not think that Category:Industry in Pakistan is a good target (hospitals aren't generally considered to be part of industry) and merging to Category:Healthcare industry is unneeded since the content is already more deep down in that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 1 September 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:Healthcare industry in India
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 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the distinction between Category:Healthcare industry and Category:Health care is very helpful, but we certainly dont have a category tree for Healthcare industry.Rathfelder (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has created Category:Healthcare industry with 13 subcats and cfd is not authorised to remove subcats of valid categories. An upmerge of Category:Healthcare industry to Category:Health care would be another cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting any merger of the superior categories.Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The search of "Health industry" on google returns millions of results. There is article Healthcare industry too. Healthcare is now provided on commercial basis and the industry is one of biggest employers in many countries. Why proposing deleting category and sub categories therein. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a well established tree of categories based on Category:Health care. Not all the contents would fit happily into Category:Healthcare industry. Rathfelder (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty inconsistent on the one hand to propose merging Category:Healthcare industry in India to Category:Healthcare in India and on the other hand not proposing to merge Category:Healthcare industry to Category:Healthcare. The question is: is the healthcare industry a valid subtopic within healthcare? I think the answer is yes, and if that is the case then the nomination should be rejected. By the way, @Rathfelder: please indent your comments properly. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the top level there is enough material to subdivide. At the level of individual countries the distinction doesn't seem helpful. Even in India almost all of the contents of Category:Healthcare in India could happily be put into Category:Healthcare industry in India, and of course we could rename all the Healthcare categories to be Healthcare industry. But that would leave a number of topics hovering between the two - childbirth and nursing for example. Have a look at Category:Medical and health organisations based in India - would we want to to divide that between healthcare and healthcare industry? For most smaller countries we are still struggling to separate health from healthcare. Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now see what you mean. At the top level of Category:Healthcare industry there is not enough content to diffuse among all countries. At the country level these categories would become, at best, a handful of subcategories and hardly any articles. Support. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 1 September 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:NXT teams and stables
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. Timrollpickering 10:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given that NXT is a dab I'd suggest a bit of disambiguation is not unhelpful, and given that WWE NXT is a thing, it seems an easily-workable-out-by-casual-observers way to do it.Le Deluge (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Altough NXT might need disambiguation, there is no confusion clarification needed here. No different than how all the subcats of Category:Cities in Georgia (U.S. state) don't require the city to contain "(state)". The more precise name should be used for the category. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support, it is a little confusing, and I don't see how putting the identifier in there is an issue... This issue is compounded, as there actually was a NXT wrestling company based in Scotland (whilst not notable, per se, it's the same acronym for the same industry.) Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 August 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:People from Salford (district)
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. Timrollpickering 10:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The convention of using "(district)" for all districts appears to have been somewhat dropped, now with using the name of the main article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:59, 1 September 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.
Local municipalities of South Africa hierarchy
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. Timrollpickering 10:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was pointed out by User:Armbrustin a recent speedy renaming nom that the categories in this hierarchy are not well named. I agree entirely. The district municipalities all have articles named "X District Municipality", and the related categories should be named "Local municipalities of the X District Municipality". In this way we would also be following the same naming followed in the Category:Populated places in South Africa by province hierarchy. A couple of points regarding naming follow.
"Local municipalities ..." rather than "Local Municipalities ..." following the article Local municipality (South Africa) - there is some inconsistency elsewhere in the hierarchy that needs to be sorted out.
Comment: @Htonl: Thank you for this work. This nomination omits the "People from" categories which likewise lack "the" before the municipality name; see the sub-cats of Category:People by district municipality in South Africa. – FayenaticLondon 21:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm unsatisfied with that whole hierarchy. I don't think district & local municipalities are defining for people in the way that they are for places; but that's another whole discussion to have. I do think including "the" would be more in keeping with SA English usage. - htonl (talk) 23:50, 31 August 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:People from Salford, Greater Manchester
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. Timrollpickering 10:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – as it's the primary topic. Spiderpig662 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 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:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy
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. Consensus here is that a ship being part of this short-lived navy is not a defining characteristic. ℯxplicit 04:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic, as the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy only existed for less than a month during the confusion at the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the conclusion of WWI. It is not defining because reliable sources don't commonly and consistently define this ship (or other former A-H ships) as having been part of this navy. They are defined by being ships of the A-H Navy, and longer-term successor navies like the Yugoslav one (if they weren't scrapped immediately). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the category after discovering the SMS Admiral Spaun article was under-categorised. That the country wasn't widely recognized and that the ships were only with the State for less than a fortnight does not mean that the category isn't a valid one. Apparently several vessels were transferred, so the category could be better populated. Not having the category leaves a gap in the categorisation of Admiral Spaun and the other vessels involved. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the category has potential value. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. The category just needs to be properly populated. Then it would allow the users to see the ships belonging to this short-lived transitional state.-- Toddy1(talk) 08:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article does not necessarily imply that it should have an enormous category tree. With a lifetime of a month that would be highly exaggerated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place redirect to Category:Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Merge with Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. The State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs is a very short-lived entity that eventually became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. There would certainly not be an article specific to the Navy of this short-lived state, but it is part of the history of the Yugoslav Navy. The topic at hand, i.e. the transition period from the Austro-Hungarian Navy to the Royal Yugoslav Navy, is treated at length at Royal Yugoslav Navy § Origins. Place Clichy (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory a merge would be okay, but it does not seem to apply to the one article in the category. The ship became Italian and British after November 1918. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the ships that could be in this category would not be in the Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy category as they were handed to the various WWI victors, UK, France, Italy etc and did not end up in Yugoslav hands. I really think this short-lived transitional ownership isn't defining and should be dispensed with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we get that, Peacemaker67. Please allow editors to give their opinions without badgering them if they have a different view to yours. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that commenting on one vote to clarify matters qualifies as badgering. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed an opinion as if this category was actually up to its promise, i.e. containing a substantial number of ships belonging to this Navy. In this respect, the SSCN Navy can clearly be seen as the predecessor of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, as stated in the article. Therefore, the ships categories could be treated together. The fact that some ships were no longer part of the Navy when the Royal Yugoslav Navy actually took form in 1921 does not change that. It is the case of the only article currently in the category, but that is only a small statistical sample from which no general rule can be taken. However, categories are not made to hold single articles and until the category is better populated it can therefore be deleted according to WP:SMALLCAT. Place Clichy (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to make it clear I would be happy with deletion. Place Clichy (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yugoslav category: this is a shortlived name for the same place. The fact that we have an article on this does not mean that we need a separate category tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Merge and delete actually pretty much come down to the same result, as the fate of the only article in the category, SMS Admiral Spaun will probably need to be discussed elsewhere. Place Clichy (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy - If I'm reading the SMS Admiral Spaun article correctly, all surviving Austro-Hungarian Navy vessels were given to the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy. I make it at least five vessels named in that article, probably there were others. This is not an area in which I am an expert, so I've left to filling of the category to those who are more confident in this area. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: This is pretty much a moot point, and filling the category should not be a concern. It is pretty clear from the above discussion that this short-lived non-existent navy should not be the topic of a Wikipedia category. The Royal Yugoslav Navy article, the only detailed article about the topic, constantly uses the term former Austro-Hungarian vessels to describe these ships, for instance in the sentence "During that month [February 1919, later than the end of the SSCS and the birth of the KSCS], the Italians finally disembarked all remaining crew from former Austro-Hungarian vessels, leaving the nascent KSCS Navy without any ships." This sentence makes it clear that there was no Navy in between the Austro-Hungarian Navy and the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Place Clichy (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: which is contradicted by the article on Admiral Spaun, which says The Austro-Hungarian government thus decided to hand over the bulk of its fleet to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs without a shot being fired. This was considered preferential to handing the fleet to the Allies, as the new state had declared its neutrality. Furthermore, the newly formed state had also not yet publicly dethroned Emperor Karl I, keeping the possibility of reforming the Empire into a triple monarchy alive. The transfer to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs began on the morning of 31 October, with Horthy meeting representatives from the South Slav nationalities aboard his flagship, Viribus Unitis in Pola. After "short and cool" negotiations, the arrangements were settled and the handover was completed that afternoon. Thus there was an short-lived Navy of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It had personnel, albeit not enough to resist the Italian seizure of its ships. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to labour the point, but being a ship of this particular navy just isn't defining. I wrote the Royal Yugoslav Navy article, and the standard sources on the A-H Navy and Yugoslav Navy barely mention this navy's existence. It is a footnote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both articles mention transfer or hand over to the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, not the the Navy. The fact that these ships are mentioned as just "Former Austro-Hungarian ships" and that this navy is never referred to as a navy are other signs that this navy never existed, despite the fact that these ships, at port, were in physical control of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs for about a week. Place Clichy (talk) 12:08, 7 September 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:Protestants in the German Resistance
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:keep. ℯxplicit 04:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge, the Confessing Church was a clearly defined Protestant resistance organisation and is a very defining characteristic for a number of people in this category. However there are also many German resistance members in this category whose Protestant belief is merely accidental and they should be purged. The latter also applies to the Catholic members of the German resistance. With these changes the parent category Category:Members of the German Resistance by religion becomes redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there were no doubt German resistance members from varying religions, but I think it only is defining for people when it was their religious conviction that drove them to join the resistance, not just the happenstance of being a member of religion X, seeing that the war was going badly, and therefore joining the resistance to bring about the end of the war sooner. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what this nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having sampled several of the Catholic articles, it is clear to me that in most cases resistance was a matter arising out of Christian faith. I found one who merely retired to his farm where he died in 1938, so that resistance was not active. I would not oppose purging or renaming to drop "Roman" as I think there were few Greek or other Catholics in Germany. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 6 September 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:Films about Roman Catholicism
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to expend any branches within the "Category:Catholicism" top category tree. Any "Category:Roman Catholicism foo" is though pertaining tothe Category:Catholic Church top category, and should be located under that category tree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In Bob We Trust, say, is about a priest, not the Catholic Church. "Category:Roman Catholicism foo" is obviously within Category:Catholicism, by the usual rules of logic. Oculi (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of logic predate wikipedia by millennia. Oculi (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For intelligability reasons, would you mind referring to a Wikipedia article, category or policy to illustrate what you mean by logic? I'm asking since few people deliberately endorses illogic, but by consequence that means that personal interpretation of logic may vary. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Logic would be a logical place to start. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These terms may be Wikipedia redirect (and rightfully so), it does not mean that they are synonymous. Look in your usual dictionary and see if the "Catholicism" entry redirects to the "Catholic Church" entry. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they are indeed redirects on Wikipedia - both in the article space as well as category realm - would be it be too arrogant per WP:BURDEN to ask for more than a hip reference to logic? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the above objections that content is not about the Catholic Church as an organisation. Also, I see that all content is about Roman Catholic topics, rather than Eastern Catholic topics, so keeping "Roman" makes sense, although I would not be against a renaming proposal to Documentary films about Catholicism. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definately doubt there is relevance enough for a separated category branch tree for Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches subjects here. Catholic comprises them both and should suffice. That said, as a secondary best, I would support alt "Catholicism" per suggestion of Marcocapelle above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:47, 30 August 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:Science fiction in Poland
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:speedy rename C2C. – FayenaticLondon 21:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support it. I agree, everything is logical.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:56, 29 August 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:Estonian Science fiction
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 (currently empty). – FayenaticLondon 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support it. I agree, everything is logical. It`s my error.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:56, 29 August 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.