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 as nominated. – FayenaticLondon 09:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale There are about 22 or more categories of medical doctors based on the local usage issues, personally I think we could reasonably apply this name to all categories in this tree. It clearly is justified in the Hong Kong case. However without medical the name is too ambiguous so we should add medical to the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does Hong Kong English exclude surgeons from being physicians? If so, the suggestion of "physician" would be inappropriate -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, this is a typical case of WP:ENGVAR and I am assuming that for Hong Kong we use British English (correct me when I am wrong about that). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if we must rename, then as nom. Hong Kong as a former British colony uses British English and (I expect) British practice. However, I am not sure we need a rename. In British English, if some one is referred to as a doctor, it usually means a medic. I have Ph.D. but would not normally be referred to as "a doctor" in a non-academic context. It should be sufficient to include the word "medical" in the headnote. As a matter of information, a generation ago, a doctor who qualified as a surgeon would drop the title Dr and become Mr (or Mrs or Miss), but that is (I understand) a dying practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a dying practice in the UK. Still very much a current one. I've never seen an NHS webpage referring to a surgeon (or gynaecologist, who also use the style) which didn't refer to them as Mr etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doctor is too ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2022 (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:Current member states of the United Nations[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. – FayenaticLondon 22:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not two different articles. Rathfelder (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the parent enjoys a presumption of "current"; everything else should be in "former". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in the very first version of Category:Member states of the United Nations page it was written: This category includes both current and former state members of the United Nations. Therefore I assumed that it would contain both current and former state members. --Heanor (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until somebody creates a "former" category, then the parent contains both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and remove header from the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge removing (or replacing) the headnote. The former members consists of countries that have merged or split, and are better as a subcat. We do not normally encourage "current" categories, but in this case it is unlikely to become obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2022 (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. – FayenaticLondon 22:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's rather unclear whether this category refers to wargames or video games thematically about war. (It's the latter - Category:Computer wargames is the former.) The title change would make it more clear and prevent the current confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand the difference between the two categories. Article Computer wargame seems to be the main article of both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: "War video games" is meant to be for games that are - plot/setting wise - about war, but not necessarily wargames. Something like "Call of Duty" would fall under the category, despite obviously not being a wargame. That is the confusion that is taking place here - people are assuming it is a wargame category and putting things outside of it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are two slightly different things involved, but I am not sure whether a robust boundary between them can be identified. One is what was once called a tactical exercise without troops, in which generals planned tactics for war as part of their continuing training. another is video games where the proponent is invited to shoot his enemies. These are two extremes, but I expect there is a continuum between them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2022 (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.
