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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category might be a bad idea because addiction can be developed to every drug as well as to variety of other human behaviors. Addictiveness isn't necessarily property of a drug or a behavior but addiction might be more often a getaway from deficiency in some fundamental human needs. See Rat Park experiment for a practical example. Of course person can also develop a physical dependence to a medication in prolonged use but categorisation like this doesn't clarify the circumstances at all. This is very similar to previously deleted category Illegal drugs in the sence that a certain drug can be legal or illegal depending on time and place in history as well as a certain person can develop addiction to alcohol whereas another person doesn't. As a matter of practicality: at least every psychoactive drug would need to be categorised in this category and that wouldn't be of much use. With this kind of thinking the next thing to categorise would be addictive behaviours.--Custoo (talk)
Delete Are we going to include sugar in this category? (See Sugar addiction.) It's a slippery slope here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. Would not oppose a well thought out rename around Substance dependence if anyone can think of one. SFB 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this categorization could easily get bogged down in conflicting views of addiction/habituation/dependence. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category isn't necessary...how about internet as an addictive drug? Reawaken (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (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:Christian interfaith and secular relations[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not clear what the difference is between "interfaith" and "and other religions" Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your suggestion is to clarify (narrow) the scope of the category to a dialogue/cooperation scope. No problem with that all. However, I wouldn't recommend to include 'ecumenical' in here, because then the scope of the category widens enormously as it will include a huge amount of within-Christianity interaction as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At further notice, it seems like (almost?) none of the articles that are currently in this category is related to interfaith dialogue. It seems like the original proposal of upmerging wasn't a bad idea after all. At best I can imagine, after upmerging the current content and deleting the category, that the category will be recreated and filled with entirely new content that does relate to interfaith dialogue. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be right, the articles aren't about interfaith dialog at all. Upmerge to Category:Christianity and other religions. Editor2020 03:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed: Merge to the title that best matches the current contents. Aristophanes68(talk) 21:15, 23 August 2014 (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.
Support per nom. Editor2020 01:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
Support as speedy. SFB 20:35, 19 August 2014 (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:Alumni of the Royal Free and University College Medical School[edit]
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The convention is that alumni of predecessors are deemed to be those of the current successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but to Category:Alumni of UCL Medical School; I don't think the "the" is typically used when referring to this school. If the UK university tree would convert to the "SCHOOL alumni" naming format, these issues would not generally arise. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alumni of UCL Medical School, per Good Ol'factory, Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (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 schools by country and subcategories[edit]
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/rename. Although the nominator has not listed the subcats here, they have been tagged, and I think this is sufficient to demonstrate consensus. – FayenaticLondon 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should not get hung up on titles. In UK, the Catholics have seminaries; the Anglicans have theological colleges; and others have Bible Colleges or use other titles. None should be categoiriesed as schools, as they are clearly tertiary colleges, even if they may use the word "school" in their title. Function is much more important than name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This should correctly be placed under the tertiary education category. SFB 20:37, 19 August 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Category is undersized (only 42 stubs), and a scan doesn't find any more. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. There can only be one season article per year, and they're not all stubs. Furthermore, there are more MLB categories that should be folded into this... – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Most of these are close to the limit for a stub type. WE might usefully also (or just) merge to a stub for the club Category:Detroit Tigers stubs, which could also include stubs on theri players, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the Giants and Tigers, all of these aer at least 45 (we generally delete at 50, but make exceptions if we would be upmerging into a huge category); even if we go with a 50 limit, that would only add the Red Sox, White Sox, Dodgers and Athletics. And no, we shouldn't place players in these stub categories, unless the palyer in question is known to have particularly strong ties to the team. One possible upmerge, though, would be to group by state (that would put the Giants, Dodgers and Athletics into a single category) and region as we have with many US stub category trees; however, this would put stubs about what was, at the time, a New York team (Giants, Dodgers) into a California stub category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's way too complicated... Just put them all under Category:Baseball season stubs and be done with it, no reason for further categorization. Spanneraol (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2014 (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.
Merge somewhere. Kosala does not appear to be a modern polity, only an ancient kingdom. Modern education should be categorised according to modern political boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. All article in this category seems to be categorised under "Education in Odisha" (Correct) and "Education in Kosala" (Wrong). Kosala is not any recognized modern area. If any article is not categorized under 'Education in Odisha' then add it and better to delete 'Category:Education in Kosala'.--Shiti (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2014 (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.
Support. Matches subcategory naming. Editor2020 01:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. ditto Hugo999 (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (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.
Support Clarifies that this is a topic in a city, not a place or culture as the current name suggests. SFB 20:39, 19 August 2014 (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:English women dramatists and playwrights[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: There is nothing about being a woman that is defining about being a dramatist or playwright. Having separate categories like this is simply inexcusable. All should be moved to a non-gendered category. I thought this was already covered when we suffered embarrassment in the media. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- many author categories are split by gender. For one thing, persons of each gender will produce work from the perspective of their own gender. However the parent should be split if this is going to be retained with a men deamatist category. If not kept, merge back to parent, rahter than deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge contents into the parent Category:English dramatists and playwrights where required, as some seem to be missing. Lots of study specifically on women dramatists makes this a reasonable category, but all contents should appear in the main category (or its children) per usual arrangements – this was the real issue that attracted such negative attention. SFB 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/If Deleted, Merge Neutral on substantive discussion here but, if deleted, should be merged per Sillfolkboy. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into parent cat as well. But I thought I read somewhere that recent discussions had decided that female X cats should have parallel male X cats as well, so that we don't create the impression that women are a subgroup of men. If that is the new policy (and maybe I'm incorrect), then we need to create the male cat as well. Aristophanes68(talk) 04:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I am a male stage director and can attest that theatre was and still is highly "gendered" and nowhere moreso than among playwrights. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to merge - identifying women writers is not only an important move for creating visibility of their work, but has been repeatedly in scholarship demonstrated as important to the interpretative framework in which we explore society: gender, like race, class, ethnic identity, etc, play a big part in our construction of social values. This is not an act of ghettoization, the hierarchy of categories clearly subsumes this category within the larger grouping, Sadads (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: A quick check of a few articles in the category shows that the works they describe relate to a single New Year, not several of them. Since it makes more sense to have a category for New Year fiction regardless of the number of instances in each work, the category should be renamed rather than removing those works that are about a single instance. — Smjg (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the works in the category are about New Year's Eve rather than New Year's Day. Some of them might be about both – indeed, I suppose New Year is essentially a festive season centred on those two days. And so I think it would be overkill to have separate categories for New Year's Eve fiction and New Year's Day fiction. Moreover, Category:New Year fiction would be consistent with how other similar categories are named. — Smjg (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the same problem as all the "about" categories; how much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much?? The Poseidon Adventure, really?? It was a New Year's cruise, so everyone watching the film as the poor souls are searching for escape were entranced by wondering whether or not the cast's New Year's resolutions were in jeopardy....yep, that's how we all remember our feelings on the film (either version). This is the subjectivity of these sorts of cats...The Poseidon Adventure was as much about New Years Day as the Titanic movie was about sex in cars, nude modelling, how the rich need more practice with their weapons, the value of cash during crisis, church services, gambling, and anything else featured in the film. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Improvement on clarity of subject. SFB 20:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Something proposal is better than what's there now. Also open to Peterkingiron's possible alternative rename. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but none of the other similar categories are in the possessive, so I can't see any reason this should be.... — Smjg (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The nominator is reasonable. Reawaken (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2014 (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.
