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 rename as above to define reasonable scope. Delete otherwise. SFB 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom. We are never going to have more than two articles if we do keep this. Furthermore the concept is based on the fallacy that English politics charnged significantly in 1707 and 1800 when further nations were admitted to the Westminster Parliament. Neither the Whigs nore the Tories were founded in 1707: they both emerged in the late 17th century; and they were not dissolved by union with Ireland in 1800. What happened was that the whigg fragmented and one faction joined with the Tories to form the Conservatives, but even that is a simplication. If we do keep it, I would suggest Category:British politcal parties (1707-1800), but I do not see the point. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 20 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.
The result of the discussion was:speedily deleted as empty following deletion of self-promotional contents. – FayenaticLondon 20:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 things here and as both are likely to be deleted no need for this cat. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 13 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.
Category:Discographies of musicians and musical groups from Chicago, Illinois[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:Upmerge This probably makes it harder for readers to find what they're looking for since they have to know that band X or Y is from Chicago. Moreover, discographies from Chicago artists do not share specific attributes. Pichpich (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – the city of origin of the musician/band is not a defining characteristic of a discography. Oculi (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I'm open to breaking this category up but maybe genre or some other attribute that would be better known by the casual reader. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Location is a poor choice to divide up discographies. When assessing a discography, location is merely a peripheral element to the topic. Genre would be a much better one. SFB 22:30, 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.
Upmerging of Academic/Higher education country categories 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:No consensus. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Re the category Category:Academia by country I am proposing that the category and country subcategories should be upmerged to Category:Higher education by country and country subcategories. An alternative would be a merge in the other direction, but think that two overlapping categories are unnecessary, and that one category and subcategories should be upmerged into the other, and would like some comments befor tagging all the subcategories! The categories Category:Academia, Category:Academic institutions and Category:Higher education also require consideration. Hugo999 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose academia is a broader topic than higher education and includes research. Tim! (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am quite happy with upmerging Higher Education to the broader category Academia (which is the larger and more recent category tree) Hugo999 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – another problem is that the subtree of academics places 'faculty in foo' under 'fooian people', which is wrong. 2.99.134.120 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns since academia is more then higher education. So while the topics may be related I far from convinced that they should be combined as proposed. I could suggest that Academia be split into the higher eduction part and the research part. But then I'm not sure that works. My gut is suggesting that these related categories be cleaned up so that anything in Category:Academiaand the subcategories is moved to better categories. That would leave Category:Academia with what does not fit anyplace else. At that point we could figure out what need to be done. I'm also not sure how to parent this to higher education. Since the research component is not really a good fit. Clearly we need more discussion. So I'll oppose for now pending better suggestions on which to gather a consensus. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having two categories for each (most) countries i.e. both Academia in Foo and Higher Education in Foo seems unnecessarily complicated to me, with the likelihood that articles about the same subject will be put in different categories for different countries As well as Category:Academia by country and Category:Higher education by country there is also the smaller category Category:Vocational education by country which also seeks to group studies in several fields of study together. With three overall categories grouping several fields of study together in various ways, this complicates category trees. Medicine and Law are traditional academic fields of study and are also vocational subjects. NB: There are also (small?) categoryies for Category:Research and Category:Research and developmentHugo999 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you that there should be one academic/higher education tree although I would construct it a little differently than this nomination. If the decision is between this proposal and the status quo, put me down as "Weak Support". RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 21 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.
