Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13[edit]

Australian societies[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 to "Society in FOO". The Vic discussion along with the desire for consistency makes this the clear choice. I'll also apply this consensus to all Australian states and territories. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The below "Australian societies" discussions have been relisted mostly to elicit more discussion about the Victorian case, which is unusual and requires more attention. Once we figure out that case, it will likely help inform what we should do in the other cases, as consistency in a closely related categorization scheme is a strong rationale. (These should be closed together, obviously.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 15:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victoria (Australia) society[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania and other states with 'a' final letter JarrahTree 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South Australia society[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania JarrahTree 13:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Western Australia society[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Tasmania - lack of possessive 'n' renders meaning not usual usage JarrahTree 13:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tasmania society[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Tasmania society is not current usage (Tasmania'n' would have been ok) - the parent cat specifically incorporated the possessive 'n' (Australia'n') - if Australian can be used, states ending in 'a' should have the same for consistency of usage
another editor currently doing a lot of Tasmanian editing suggests Society in Tasmania - noting that other states of Australia with 'a' final letters, with lack of possessive 'n' requires changing as it is not correct usage JarrahTree 13:20, 15 July 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:People associated with the sex industry[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 all; remove Category:Sex industry researchers and activists from category tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rest of nationality categories
Nominator's rationale: rename to avoid the word "associated" which one would easily associate with WP:OCASSOC. The format of the proposed rename is similar to e.g. Category:People in international development. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 13 August 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:63 in international 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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and highly unlikely there will be more articles about treaties or conflicts in each of these particular years. No need to merge the first two nominated categories to their other parent category because the article is already in the century treaties category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Annual categories at remote periods are a menace. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually those years are well documented in some civilizations, so not necessarily those "highly unlikely" to be populated. I'm neutral anyways on this.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to the category for the year. I do not think any subdivion of these categories are justified with our current content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 10 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_13&oldid=1074816016"