Category:Logos of the United Kingdom Government[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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The new name would more accurately reflect that these logos are for agencies as well as government departments. Cloudbound (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the UK we do not have government agencies. Do you mean QUANGOS? Or are you thinking of things like Hospital Trusts that belong to the state, but have some independence in management? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking executive agencies. Cloudbound (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match the daughter category; there seems to be a difference of meaning in "government" on the various sides of the pond: apparently, in the UK the government means a slew of ministers of high station in parliamentary majority and not the state apparatus, where in the US the government is whole lot on the federal payroll: president, congress (majority and minority), the FBI, CIA, FDA, IRS, HUD, DOE, National Park System, Veterans Affairs, air traffic controllers, etc. What is the British English equivalent to the encompassing view of "government", which does seem to include agencies: the National Crime Agency for one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term used in Britain for police, schools, hospitals, councils etc (things paid for out of taxes) is "public sector". DexDor(talk) 19:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. If we renamed the category as proposed there would still be images in this category that are logos of things (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre) that are neither a department, an agency or a quango. It would be better to use category text to explain the scope of the category than to attempt to have a comprehensive list in the name of the category. DexDor(talk) 19:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, frankly I can't imagine that the current name would be too ambiguous. If renamed, I like Sionk's alternative better, as more inclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2015 (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.
Delete We should avoid too fine categorizing of politicians by political views, especially since these can and do change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. I think that the delete votes are based on a misunderstanding: this category is not related to an intersection of Arab ethnicity & nationalism but instead it is part of Arab nationalism as a political movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why I proposed a "merger" as opposed to completely deleting this category. Charles Essie (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, my delete vote is based on understanding that that this is a categorization of a specific political movement with all of its descriptors being political. My point is that we do not need to break down down political groups in such precise ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree of course, my proposal was based on that logic. I guess I should've made that more clear. I'm just hoping that the content in this category finds it's way into the other categories I mentioned. On that note I think it's safe to say that this one is a closed book since it's been over a month and no objections have been raised against deleting/merging this category. Charles Essie (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2016 (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:Political party alliances in Republika Srpska[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: Both categories are very small to some extent overlap with one another. The seems to me like classic WP:OVERCAT. Charles Essie (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. These are very small categories. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a two article category of this type is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to size. I would note that the RS is an subentity of B-H, like the Federation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then this category should be merged into both of them. Charles Essie (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But these are not political parties, they are alliances of parties. Putting them in the "parties" categories is an inaccuracy we should be avoiding (and why these categories exist). It's not as if this is a category that will never have any more articles added to it. For all we know, three more alliances could be formed for the next elections – it will only grow in size. Number57 21:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The articles do not have to be political parties to be in that category, they just need to be about political parties. That's the basis of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2016 (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:listify, then delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: a number of countries have evolved from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, so putting them in one category is too black-and-white. A list can provide more nuance by incorporating historical comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support categories are not temporary, so these categories would likely be applicable to the vast majority of nations current and former, e.g., France was once in each of these categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comments and because this form of categorization places (for example) Category:Spain (and hence the thousands of articles in it) under Category:Monarchy etc. DexDor(talk) 21:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep the notes in each category says 'current' and current is what is populating the categories. There can be no confusion here. This is their current type of government so they are appropriately categorized. Hmains (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We normally categorize things by their permanent characteristics, not by their current status. DexDor(talk) 08:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per clarification on Current monarchies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on nom, but current monarchies would probably be better upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Categories should not be of such a nature that any article currently in them should ever have to be removed. There are obvious exceptions like Category:Living people. However there should be very, very, very few exceptions, and since lists can much better cover this issue, especially since there is nuanced territory between the two listed types of monarchies, George III may have been a constitutional monarch, but the limits and extents of his power are very different than those of Elizabeth II, so this is much better coveredby lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2015 (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:Merge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per related CFM here with a rationale of "not needed". Carried by consensus of 2 to 1 on the basis that soccer strikers are indivisible from soccer forwards. SevcoFraudsters (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - per previous CFD. GiantSnowman 10:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, on the basis that 'strikers' is simply a more colloquial description of 'forwards', i.e. the same thing. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as Forward and Striker are essentially the same position. JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2015 (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.
