< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

Category:Health care

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, given the lack of consensus to move the main article (see Talk:Health care#Requested move 2 December 2018). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The change of the parent category from "Health care" to "Healthcare" is proposed because "Healthcare" is a recognised noun and when spoken is spoken as one word not two e.g. "Healthcare in Australia" would be spoken without a pause between health and care. The majority of the country subcategories e.g. Category:Healthcare in Australia use one word apart from the 4 or 5 countries below (15 out of 20)
The subcatgories which would also require changing are::Category:Health care in Cyprus,:Category:Health care in France, Category:Health care in New Zealand, Category:Health care in Spain & Category:Health care in Catalonia.
NB: Probably the articles Health care and Catholic Church and health care should also have notices of proposed changes but I am unsure how to do this. Hugo999 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for the RM to close...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 16 December 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:Theological term

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First off, really bad name. The apparent intended meaning was something like "Terminology in Christian theology", because it is a subcategory of Category:Christian theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all except for (ironically) Religious exclusivism are stubs that are solely within the scope of Christianity and its denominations. Not only that, the current title of the category is singular, against convention.
The subject overlaps significantly if not entirely with Category:Christian terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which has an impressive collection of undeniably theological terms (Biblical infallibility, Brotherly love (philosophy), Neonominalism, Paraclete) that would be a better place for terms like Fides quaerens intellectum. The title 'Theological term' should then be redirected to Category:Religious terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:15, 16 December 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:Aliases of 76.66

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: listified, and posted to the project's talk. It can be deleted if users there have no utility for it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Aliases of 76.66 to article Wikipedia:Aliases of 76.66
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this topic is relevant to the whole AfC project. Might be better off as a historical page in the project namespace. Flooded with them hundreds 08:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 16 December 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:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the 1945 Canadian federal election

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_23#Category:Liberal_Party_of_Canada_candidates_in_the_1867_Canadian_federal_election and other past examples, this represents an overly granular distinction for the level of notability that it actually entails. We don't categorize actual Members of Parliament by which individual sessions of parliament they sat in or which individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize candidates more specifically than we do the actual winners. Further, this creates a significant degree of category bloat, since candidates often do not run just once but frequently try again once or several more times in subsequent elections — and since having been a non-winning candidate for Parliament is not a notability claim in and of itself, but rather people only have articles to file in here if they already had preexisting notability for another reason (e.g. provincial MLAs), it results in most of the categories being unnecessary WP:SMALLCATs with just a handful of entries. Note that I am aware that some parallel categories still exist for other political parties as well — there are far too many to tackle in one batch, so I've been tackling it in pieces one party at a time. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 16 December 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:Anti-nuclear protests 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: merge both to Category:Anti-nuclear protests, and the latter also to Category:Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcats, one of which is nominated for deletion Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 16:53, 16 December 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:Anti-war protests in the United Kingdom

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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 (anti-nuclear) subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:52, 16 December 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:Peace movement by former 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: no consensus. While there is a pretty clear consensus these categories should be upmerged, one key question is unclear: should the anti-nuclear movement as a whole, or only the anti–nuclear weapons movement, be considered part of the peace movement? As this discussion has become stale, I recommend renominating these categories in a way that recognizes the need to merge the contents to at least one parent category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcategories Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcategories Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 article, 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article and one subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one sub category Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mirror of Category:Anti-nuclear movement by country. The country sub cats almost all only contain the Category:Anti-nuclear movement in Foo Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the articles are about organisations, not a movement. Rathfelder (talk) 16:33, 16 December 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:Photometry

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. Renaming is to bring category name in conformity with main article Photometry (optics). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose The category is currently broader than Photometry (optics) is. The different meanings of "Photometry" that are covered on the disambiguation page are all related to one another, and the category covers the broader topic. We should not rename the category simply to match the article title. If the category is to be renamed, it should be because there is a consensus to narrow the category's scope.--Srleffler (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 16 December 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:Egyptian Premier League footballers

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that "footballers" is the correct word to use here. "Players" is more suitable in my opinion and is used in other leagues' categories. I originally moved it by myself but it was reverted after less than five minutes. Ben5218 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 16 December 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.

Roman Catholic churches by city

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 as nominated, without prejudice to recreating if/when there is more content to support categorization by city. It is important to remember that, just because one or two articles are in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that "category A and B" has to be created. Looking through a sample of the nominated categories, it is apparent that a significant number of Roman Catholic churches in X categories were inappropriately/prematurely fully diffused by city, even if the category contained far too few articles to warrant subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are a number of different objections and I'll counter them one by one:
  1. In Auckland 13% of the population consists of Catholics. In Georgia (Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia) 84% of the population is Orthodox and Catholicism is one of many minorities. Tulsa is part of a Protestant Bible belt. In neither of these cities we can expect to have a large number of notable Catholic church buildings.
  2. Having too many articles in 1 category is not an issue here.
  3. Having 2 categories in the same article when 1 specific one could do the job just as well is a poor argument. If we would just want to have as little category designations in an article as possible, every article would simply have its own category. The idea of categories however is that you find a reasonable number of related articles easily.
- Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To counter your first point, according to google maps there are 20 churches of the catholic denomination in Tulsa, 5 in Tiblisi, and over 40 in the Auckland area. Sure not all these buildings will be notable by Wikipedia standards, but there is a potential for growth here and therefore WP:SMALLCAT is not applicable. Also many of the categories you have nominated are located in countries with more substantial Catholic populations, such as France, Germany, etc. And lastly saying that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X is a poor argument. Anglicans make up a rather small percentage of the total religious population of the United States, but we still have many articles on church buildings of the Anglican denomination because their articles tend to be notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really about the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT. The way I understand it, which is confirmed by the example given, is that there should always be a substantive reason for growth: with a political office, other people will take that office for sure. Extrapolating this to churches in the nominated categories, a substantive reason for growth would be if every few years a new Catholic church is being built in the above cities - but that is not actually the case. Reversing the argument: if there would be no need to provide a substantive reason for growth, one could claim growth potential for really every category and WP:SMALLCAT would become a dead letter. Just numbers don't say anything, because they do not provide any insight in the degree of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I didn't mean to say that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X; instead I meant to say that not having a substantial population is an obvious predictor for not having many notable buildings (not a perfect predictor, but an obvious predictor). Finally, I'm not sure I get your last point. If you mean Anglican including Episcopalian then a substantial part of the US population belongs to it, but if you mean Anglican excluding Episcopalian then there aren't many churches at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 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:Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party politicians

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. For reference, the move discussion resulted in no consensus to rename the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OFFICIALNAME. Druk Phuensum Tshogpa — Bukhari (Talk!) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the other way around, right? Druk Phuensum Tshogpa being the official name, the English translation being the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example here. The fact that an abbreviation is being added for Druk Phuensum Tshogpa also indicates that Druk Phuensum Tshogpa is the official name. Anyway there would be no point in using another common name in English if Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party (as an English name) would have been the official name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Druk Phuensum Tshogpa is the common name. Most of the newspapers use Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT). See my comment here. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 08:09, 21 December 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:Flora of the Mediterranean

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Flora of the Mediterranean to Category:Flora of the Mediterranean Basin
  • Propose renaming Category:Fauna of the Mediterranean to Category:Fauna of the Mediterranean Basin
  • Propose renaming Category:Biota of the Mediterranean to Category:Biota of the Mediterranean Basin
Nominator's rationale: To clarify the scope of these categories (Mediterranean redirects to Mediterranean Sea, but the text of these categories states that they are about the wider region).
Note: Deletion (with some upmerging) could also be considered as most of the articles in these categories are well categorized by continent/sea and other categories (e.g. Category:Plants of Mediterranean climate).  This applies especially to the flora category as this region is not in the relevant wikiproject's scheme.  Note: Currently this is such a mess that, for example, Chamois is (via intermediate categories) in Category:Marine organisms.
Note: The creator of the flora category has been blocked for category-related disruption. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer delete to rename (mainly as this region isn't clearly defined and overlaps other regions). Of the subcats/articles I've looked at none would need an upmerge. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If the categories are deleted then a note should be placed at Category:Environment of the Mediterranean along the lines of "For articles about organisms native to the Mediterranean Basin see Category:Biota of Europe ...". DexDor (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved many of the articles down. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 17 December 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:Inter Wehnen players

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary as there is only one entry (Aleksei Spasskov), there is no article for Inter Wehnen/FC Inter Wehnen, and there is little evidence this club exists. The club information on Aleksei Spasskov is also unsourced. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:38, 16 December 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.
More