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 (ie, move back). Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match both the parent category and documentary film subcat. The reason I didn't take this to WP:CFDS is I see that that another editor applied to a Cfd tag toCategory:Documentary films about health care but didn't know how to actually create the Cfd, it seems. And looking at the edit history -- something about "promoting minority styling," whatever that means -- this is clearly not unopposed. Tho the rename seems to me to be obvious per X of Y. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was never tagged for that discussion in November. User:Kashmiri then made an out-of-process move in December, with the justification "Spelling much more common on Wikipedia". CFD tags were added by user:Rathfelder on 16 January 2016,[1] but he did not start a discussion. I suggest a procedural speedy revert to "health care" after the out-of-process move. – FayenaticLondon 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From previous discussions I have concluded that it is pointless to try to standardise either way. Both "Healthcare" and "Health care" are in common use, with no distinction, and often in the same paragraph.Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:C2C and WP:C2D would differ with you there. When you have a main article, parent category and sub-category all aligned one way, it seems arbitrary and rather pointless to me to have a nested mid-level category spelled a different way. But clearly you disagree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many main articles and categories in healthcare. Some use one, some the other. This doesn't appear to relate to geography, language or any other variable I can identify. [[WP:C2D] "applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". That is not the case here. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True if one looks at all the subcategories listed at Category:Health care, at first glance the majority seem to favour healthcare, one word. But as was suggested at the admin close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_27#Categories_in_Health_Care, and reiterated today on the talk page, you haven't (yet) taken up the challenge of trying to address the issue of the main article name. So while I agree WP:C2C may be of little help, given the current hodgepodge of spellings, there is still WP:C2D. I'm fine with either spelling, btw. And of course WP:C2C would allow for regional variations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the regional thing -- and I don't wish to be labour this -- but I notice Rathfelder that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, "whose main goal is to organise and bring clarity to the vast number of articles on Wikipedia related to the United Kingdom's National Health Service," whose WP:LEAD begins: "Each of the four countries of the United Kingdom has a publicly funded health care system" -- note the spelling. So if I understand correctly, not only haven't you addressed the main article Health care, you haven't even managed (or even tried?) to get the UK article to reflect your preference, though you worked on it as recently as Feb. 2. You're attempting to use the category system to address a personal preference that you don't seem to have tried to implement in the most basic way at the article level, even in your own Wikiproject. Or perhaps you did, and it was rejected by other editors? I did see that back in December -- at the time you attempted this out-of-process move -- you did change the lead to Publicly funded health care, to reflect your preference, with the edit summary "There is a plan to make usage more consistent across the encyclopedia - including renaming this article." Yet the plan is yours, unilaterally. For example you moved Single-payer healthcare to its new name in December with no discussion whatsoever. I think WP:Trout most definitely applies here, for the way you've gone about this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concluded that this was probably a futile exercise, and my efforts, unsatisfactory though they were, to raise discussion, got little reaction. It is certainly clear that in the world at large there is no consistent usage. So, see for example Category:Health care which goes on to talk about "articles on the health sciences and healthcare profession..." But if there is any interest in the idea I am more interested in changing the categories than the articles, because the single word helps in locating relevant categories.Rathfelder (talk) 15:25, 31 March 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:Led Zeppelin album track list templates[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:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now empty following deletion of the template. Delete. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:16, 9 April 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:Regional dishes of the United States[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: Re-nominating this, now that List of regional dishes of the United States has been well populated. (See previous CfD). The use of "regional", here meaning "associated with some unspecified region", is non-defining, a tad vague, and superfluous to the well-defined "Cuisine of X" categories (or the parent Category:American cuisine, for dishes belonging to cuisines lacking a category). Ibadibam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that "regional" is vague here. Neutralitytalk 21:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I argued last time, some people use categories to find info, some prefer to use lists. I think we should let people navigate they way that works best for them. valereee (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean that every list that exists always has to have a directly corresponding category paired with it. There are some circumstances where a list and a category are both justified under the respective and non-identical rules governing the appropriateness of lists and categories, but there are many other situations where one form is justifiable and the other isn't. This is of the latter type. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Different Reasons We already have a whole tree of Category:American cuisine by region that actually groups dishes by which region so it's not such a vague category. While this category is technically a parent category, in practice it serves as an WP:OVERLAPCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RevelationDirect. I don't remember if the previous time Category:American cuisine by region covered all regions of the United States, but now it certainly does, which makes the nominated category obsolete. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A dish may legitimately be defined by the specific region that it's regional to, but the simple fact of being a regional dish is not a substantive or defining point of commonality between dishes that are regional to different regions from each other. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 23 April 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) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. (there was another, but on inspection it didn't appear to be international. No obvious distinction between a society and an organisation or an association Rathfelder (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Some admin confusion here. List of Cosmopolitan Clubs article is tagged for merging. It is not common to tag articles in the categories involved; just categories get tagged. Hmains (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the CfD tag from the article to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one article: List of Cosmopolitan Clubs is little more a dabpage for clubs sharing a name. The American section says that they were started in 1903, but those on other continents are often older. Many of the clubs listed have not article, the link being to the town where they are. This is a clear case of "shared name", so that I do not think the list has any coherence. It does not merit a category; let alone one of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 3 April 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: This category is anachronistic, as the novel as a genre is for the most part is held to date in the west from 1600 or so. Note that this would obviate the merger of Category:Roman-era novelists, which has this as its only member. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator of the merge of the parent) I wouldn't mind merging this category per WP:SMALLCAT but whereas the main works of both writers are (perhaps anachronistically, but nevertheless) characterized as novels, I wouldn't mind either to also upmerge them to Category:Novelists. There is also a Category:Ancient Greek novelists, by the way, partly containing Greek-writing novelists from the Roman era. It might be an alternative to merge that category and the nominated category to Category:Classical antique novelists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This category has two Roman authors in it. While novels in the modern sense are later, there is fiction from a number of periods: the two authors clearly wrote fiction; Beowulf is clearly fiction; so is Gawain and the Green Knight; and a number of medieval Romances. I am loth to see all this merged as nom, but I think we might merge it all into Category:Ancient Roman fiction writers, with cognate categories for other languages and periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "fiction writer" is better than "novelist" and this rename basically resolves the anachronism issue. (Btw I think we may still merge this with the Greek category - then it becomes Category:Classical antique fiction writers). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the term "late antique", but am not clear what the appropriate term for Greek in 1-4 centuries AD is. If "classical antique" is the correct term, I would support that, but it is a discussion for another day: possibly one for the closing Admin to start. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 3 April 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) 06:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 2 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now With no objection to reccreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:26, 31 March 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.
Currently, this category doesn't aid navigation because it only contains 1 article: the poorly named Royal Family Order. I don't think populating the category is a good idea at this point because that article relies almost entirely on user generated citations from Blogspot, Pinterest and a royal fan page which is a weak foundation for a category. But, once the article is renamed and properly sourced, we can go from there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RM I requested a move of the main article here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The RM was closed with no consensus on a better title. – FayenaticLondon 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. The one article lists awards made by a series of British, Swedish and Norwegian monarchs, each apparently with its own article. These have a sufficient coherence to merit keeping them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, but that main article is based entirely on blogs and the accuracy of its claims are questioned on the talk page. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, it's unlikely that this category can be further populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: as there are currently 8 articles on the topic (the main article lists 7 UK pages), I populated the category last month. – FayenaticLondon 08:55, 10 June 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.
Relisted at 2016 JUN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
