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. – FayenaticLondon 22:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not sure that we need an eponymous category here. Actual hospitals are linked in the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The main article indiucates that there are several more hsopitals. If these seriopusly operate as a group, they ought to have a category. I suspect that the probelm is that most of the hospitals are redlinked, probably because this is the English, not the German WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can always be created when the articles exist if there is a need. We already have a list so the category is not required. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Good Olfactory. We do not need a category with two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 12 July 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:Middlesbrough F.C. chairmen and executives[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:Rename. No others in Category:Directors of football clubs in England mention executives in the name. I proposed a non-standard name at CFD April 12 but that has just been closed as "no consensus". The current proposal matches the majority format within the parent category. – FayenaticLondon 21:43, 19 June 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:Delete. Unnecessary per WP:OC#Eponymous. All related articles are categorized in an appropriate topic category (i.e. Category:SOJA albums) and are all linkable from the eponymous article. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the articel on the band will make a good main article for the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 19 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, or rename to Category:People associated with the Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital which seems to be the purpose. Given that we tend to avoid associated with categories, the delete seems the best option. Note most of the articles do not mention this association so it may not be defining, and that is a further reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Category:Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital people (or staff or personnel) and purge, if necessary. We have categories for university academic staff, so that I do not see why we should not for a major hsopital, but this needs to be a long-term connection, not a brief secondment or serving there for a short period while under training. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that last part makes inclusion criteria subjective. That supports a delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept this category will need inclusion criteria, at least one parent category and purging (e.g. articles like Germaine de Staël don't even mention the hospital). DexDor (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loosely linking people with hospitals is not a good plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 12 July 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:Delete. As evidenced by the content, problem gaming is not defining for much of the content. While it may be appropriate to have a category for the organizations that deal with this, it would be best to create that separate from this discussion and this category does not need to exist for any organization ones to be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator is simply going around adding problem gambling to articles with the word gambling in them. (Added, as above, a Problem gambling organizations category seems like a good idea.) 2005 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
um.... The situation here has gotten rather unstable as the only membership now is Category:Problem gambling organizations; the problematic categorizations have been removed since the nomination was made. As it stands I would tend to prefer keeping this one and upmerging the organizations subcat. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The organizations category was created while the discussion was ongoing. Since nothing was removed, just placed in a subcategory, this should not be a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve created the category and after reading your thoughts, i agree that it should be me merge with category Gambling, with another categories like Problem gambling organizations or Problem gambling treatment I agree that i´ve rushed in my editions, but the issue it´s still there, Problem gambling it´s a dissease related to gambling and it should be well documented on Wikipedia.--Euroescritor (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have sub categories for a reason. 2005 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration I am in line with thoughts of others and would delete this category. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content can easily, and naturally, be merged to Category:Gambling as we have so few articles specifically on problem gambling. The organisations cat above is not problematic, just as the absence of Category:Anti-smoking is not felt at Category:Anti-smoking activists. SFB 16:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every article was already properly categorized in the Gambling and society subcategory of Gambling. Nothing needs to be done except this category deleted, and the problem gambling organizations category left to exist as a subcategory of Gambling and society. 2005 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gambling and society it's quite broad, and we´re talking of a disease. It´s like talking about tabacco, such a tabacco in the movies and not talking about cancer. At any case, Problem gambling should be a category of Gambling, not Gambling and society--Euroescritor (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Re-examine I was able to pretty easily populate the category with what I think are appropriate articles, although this is outside my areas of expertise. Did I redeem it or just add articles that don't belong here?RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Gambling. The difficulty is of deciding when gambling becomes problem gambling: that is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 22 June 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:Delete. Vastly underpopulated stub category. Since the article indicates that this family only has 15 species, there is no reason to expect this to fill to a proper stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Orchid stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:42, 19 June 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.
The result of the discussion was:keep. I will tag it as non-diffusing. – FayenaticLondon 15:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep parent category Category:Belgian_writers is sufficiently divisible on other grounds to support a non-diffusing category such as this one (I note that a Belgian women writers category also exists), and thus this doesn't really violate the final rung rule. As to the other suggestion, Category:Dutch-language writers exists, but the scope is for non-Dutch/non-Flemish people, so that wouldn't work, and Dutch-language writers isn't divided on other grounds, and it too small to consider doing so anyway. The whole tree of writers-by-language needs some looking at. @Johnpacklambert:, can you explain how you think those language cats should be used? It seems inconsistent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in the last 8 years I don't know, is inconsistent, counter-intuitive. "Ethnic Flemish" is a quite disturbing concept too.
Wasn't talking about final rung (second paragraph of WP:GHETTO), was talking about WP:GHETTOfirst paragraph, classic ghettoization. If you take the example in that paragraph, change "German" to "Belgian" and "politicians" to "writers", this is the situation described, classic ghettoization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered ghettoization if there are diffusing sibling categories, which in this case, there are. In other words, a writer can be a LGBT writer from Belgium, and a Belgian poet for example. This is part of a series, of LGBT writers by nationality, so I don't see any reason to pick on this particular category. The writers-by-language tree and inclusion criteria thereof requires more thought, perhaps a discussion at one of the writers or novels wikiprojects would be better to sort that out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The updated categorization scheme for Dutch/Flemish/Dutch-language writers from the Netherlands/Belgium/elswhere, using standard {{catdiffuse}} templates (etc) avoids multiple issues in this sense, e.g. complies to WP:EGRS from all multiple angles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGRS#Special subcategories compliance ("If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created ... Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources") however not solved yet. I couldn't find a single external source that identifies LGBT writing in Belgium as an academically or culturally significant topic yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The use of by-language writer categories for people outside of specific countries avoids duplication. Otherwise virtually every American writer would also be in Category:English-language writers, which would just lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... which doesn't work for Dutch/Flemish/Dutch-language/from the Netherlands/from Flanders authors.
lol, didn't know about that one, I learnt something here.
Anyhow the wobbly rationale combining "nationality" for people from the Netherlands with "ethnicity" for Flemish people is removed from the category definition now [1] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a discussion about whether all the "LGBT fooers" categories can be replaced by a "LGBT people" category and category intersection. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 4 July 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.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename; the consensus at the new discussion was to keep the general "FOOian law" format; this might be best seen as an exception to that general convention due to the issues involved. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the scheme at Category:Law by country which is in the style of "Fooian law" rather than "Law in/of Foo". Although I believe all such schemes should be renamed to this style (otherwise, what is "Congolose foo" or "Dominican foo"?) I think we should have a discussion on the merits of that elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see no objection to the present name. The target is currently a cat-redirect to it. Aspects of British law have been applied to other countries within the British Empire, so that Canada, much of USA, Austrialia, New Zealand, etc. all operate forms of British Common Law, or more precisely English Common Law; for UK has three legal systems - in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. To call any of these "British law" is inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain and is therefore not British. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No logical reason to remove Northern Ireland as subcat. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The diktat of "Fooian law" rather than "Law in/of Foo" must be stopped. This is as good a place as any to begin the fightback. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 21 June 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.
