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:reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge this recent category into the older existing category (NB: the Commons ref uses "Physicians from Ukraine"). Hugo999 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge I'm not getting into any regional English usage issues for non-English speaking countries. Clearly though, this is one category. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Medical doctor is an accepted term in the US, and more common. So I see no reason to not use it in all categories for all parts of the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a make work project for bored CfDers who have nothing better to do than vote on moving pages back and forth?
On 5 February 2014 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m . . (24 bytes) (0) . . (Cydebot moved page Category talk:Nigerian women physicians to Category talk:Nigerian women medical doctors: Robot - Moving category Nigerian women physicians to Category:Nigerian women medical doctors per CFD at [[Wikipedia:Cate...)
Reverse merge -- Physician is a specialty within doctors. "Doctor" is acceptable almost everywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 31 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:no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two categories for basically the same thing. Charles Essie (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no reason to split off the more from the less successful nationalists, especially since in many cases the fact that there is a current nation state for them to identify with has nothing to do with success of nationalists and is the result of other geopolitical factors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact a difference, e.g. in Category:Spanish nationalism versus Category:Nationalisms of Spain whereas the former doesn't but the latter does include regional nationalism. However this difference is not very clear from the names of the parent categories, so I'd be open for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:Nationalism by country, or, if preferred, Category:Nationalisms by country I agree with Johnpacklambert that the historically more successful nationalisms shouldn't be split from the less successful ones, especially because it seems impossible to establish a dichotomy: many nationalisms would be located somewhere in the middle grounds, within constitutional frameworks of federalism, regional autonomy, confederations or such. At the same time, there usually is only one dominant nationalism within a single (subnational) region. What would we put into a Category: Nationalism in Catalonia besides Category:Catalan nationalism, what would we put into a Category: Nationalism in Kurdistan or Category:Nationalism in Scotland that isn't more properly categorized by Category:Kurdish nationalism resp. Category:Scottish nationalism? The top-level nation-state categories do a fairly good job in organizing all relevant political movements on the territory of that country, and for our purposes that even hold for all kinds of nationalisms, be they unionist/federalist, regionalist, autonomist or secessionist. --PanchoS (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that new Category:Nationalisms, which basically constitutes a "by name" category, not grouping the content by any criterion. Don't know how this fits into the larger category tree – is it a duplicate or a misnomer or can they all coexist? It would have to be a non-dispersing category to ensure it stays undivided, and I'm no big fan of non-dispersing categories. So I think, that new Category:Nationalisms should be renamed Category:Nationalisms by name or something more appropriate. It's definitely further complicating things, but maybe forces us to try harder and dig deeper. Frankly, I have to think about it. Your intentions when creating that catchall category would be quite helpful, if your willing to share them with us, Charles Essie. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'm sorry that I failed to make that clear. Now that I look at it the Nationalism category tree is very confusing and difficult to navigate. It could probably use some major restructuring. I open to suggestions. Charles Essie (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete Category:Nationalism by country or region Nationalism is "nation" and ought be thus sorted by country; we have other categories for separatist, irredentist, racialist, or whatever, for people wanting wannabe countries or change the borders of countries. Moreover, there will be a fine line deciding what is nationalism (which is viewed negatively here) or merely expressing one's ethnic identity, pride, or resistance to assimilation (which are viewed favorably here). So making the requested changes lets WP become the arbiter not only of what is nationalism, but to what region(s) a "nationalism" belongs to - all of which is WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree on the equation "nation = country" if that is what you mean. Besides that wouldn't have an impact on this particular discussion: all three top categories include separatist movements as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but has its problems, too, in that only the not yet successful nationalisms are represented by movements, while the already successful nationalisms are usually to some extent state doctrine. It this a welcome effect? I don't know. This and all other questions will have to be discussed in a new CfD proposal as this one seems to be without consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: if closing without consensus, please mention there should be no prejudice against a new, better prepared nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 03:49, 17 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.
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two categories for the same thing. Charles Essie (talk) 21:23, 27 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.
I see what you mean. A category with just two child categories as I proposed wouldn't be very helpful for navigation. I'm withdrawing my objections. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nationalism in Spain is not limited to Spanish Nationalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 16 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.
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 category created based on a word in the title with no other connection between the works. This may be better suited to a list, which already exists at List of twist songs. If kept, category should be renamed to Category:Twist (dance) to match the main article Twist (dance). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Keep Much to my surprise, this is actually a cohesive category around songs to dance with during The Twist dance craze of 1961 and 1962 and movies involving Twist dancers during that same timeframe. I do think @Hyacinth: should have named it Category:Twist (dance) though.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. List of twist songs identifies several dozen songs "associated with" the craze. We normally categorize songs by artist, year etc and I'm not sure we should (also) categorize songs by which craze(s) they were associated with (as well as having a list). DexDor(talk) 07:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lots of songs were written to specifically capitalize on the dance craze of the time, an oft-documented fact. Therefore the dance-related category for songs is well-defined (and may be properly referenced) when spoken of novelty and fad dances of around 1960s. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How would anyone know that "We normally categorize songs by artist, year etc"? Hyacinth (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the subcategories of Category:Songs, DexDor is quite correct, we don't have other breakdowns of songs by dance/social fad. There may be sincere disagreement about whether that means this category is ill advised or whether that's just WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we started including every article on that list in the category, that would go too far and include some articles not defined by the topic, but the current contents seem very well defined. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep well-defined. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that happened, the Category:The Twist would either go away or be a redirect to the new category name. The exact same articles would still be under Category:The Twist (dance) though. (Typically categories are named after the main article.) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is Twist (dance), no "the". I still think this ideal for a list, although I guess it could be comparable to Category:Gangnam Style by considering it more of "pop culture" category and not a "songs" category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article which is at Twist (dance). This is a style of dance which was in vogue when I was young. There is enough content for a worthwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 31 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:speedy delete. – FayenaticLondon 12:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Not a typo, but a test edit. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:43, 28 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.
