Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 2



Category:Rusyn communities in Vojvodina

 * 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: deleted by INeverCry on 10 March. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rusyn communities in vojvodina


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is the only subcategory of Rusyn communities in Serbia, and has only two articles in it. It was created by a sock of banned User:Oldhouse2012 as part of a POV-pushing drive regarding which ethnic group is the majority in villages and towns in Vojvodina. There is a clearly useful function in the other Rusyn categories, but this one is still intended as part of the POV-push. IMO it would be better to have a list article of "List of Rusyn communities in Vojvodina" where majority or plurality is left to one side. The figures used are arbitrary and meaningless for the encyclopedia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This is about an ethnicity called Pannonian Rusyns. They are related to a Slovakian and Ukranean ethnicty usually called Ruthenian.  It might be legitiamte to have Category:Communities with a Pannonian Rusyn majority, but I do not think we need to split it by country.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I really think the "majority"/"plurality" issue is one we should steer away from, particularly by country. It just opens up a can of worms. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Listify since population changes over time, and theser categories either will outrage some people by tagging past situations or lead to presentists bias. we have Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority populations.  Even though I created that category I now think we should listify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to listify if that is the outcome. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This can be closed, the cats have been deleted. I will listify this cat now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Rusyn communities in Serbia

 * 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: deleted by INeverCry on 10 March. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rusyn communities in serbia


 * Nominator's rationale: This category has only one subcategory, Rusyn communities in Vojvodina, which has only two articles in it. It was created by a sock of banned User:Oldhouse2012 as part of a POV-pushing drive regarding which ethnic group is the majority in villages and towns in Vojvodina. There is a clearly useful function in the other Rusyn categories, but this one is still intended as part of the POV-push. IMO it would be better to have a list article of "List of Rusyn communities in Vojvodina" where majority or plurality is left to one side. The figures used are arbitrary and meaningless for the encyclopedia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This is about an ethnicity called Pannonian Rusyns. They are related to a Slovakian and Ukranean ethnicty usually called Ruthenian.  It might be legitiamte to have Category:Communities with a Pannonian Rusyn majority, but I do not think we need to split it by country.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete after listifying its one sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This can be closed, the cats have been deleted. I will listify the subcat now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Witches in television

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Witches in television to Category:Witchcraft in television
 * Propose renaming Category:Witches in film to Category:Witchcraft in film
 * Propose renaming Category:Witches in written fiction to Category:Witchcraft in written fiction
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per norm (like Category:Witchcraft in folklore and mythology and the parent category Witchcraft, and even the word "witches" redirecting to "witchcraft"). Niemti (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * rename per nom seems reasonable, given the facts presented. Hmains (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * rename per nom This category covers shows depicting witchcraft, not individual witches. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * rename per nom Witchcraft covers both witches and warlocks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * rename per nom reasonable Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Television series by Buena Vista Television

 * 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: relisted to Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13. The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television to Category:Television series by Disney-ABC Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Disney no longer uses the "Buena Vista" brand name for its television unit, instead the Disney or ABC brands (or both) are used. It's been like this for half a decade. Freshh (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename This might work if it was limited to those things that used the former brand name but it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Mice albums

 * 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 Category:Mice (band) albums. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Mice albums to Category:Julianne Regan albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Mice (band) redirects to Julianne Regan. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose and rename to Category:Mice (band) albums, because these are not Julianne Regan albums but a band of which she was a member. Note that because a band doesn't have an article doesn't mean articles for albums can't exist if sufficient notability is established (a separate discussion), and the most defining aspect of an album is the artist who recorded it. Maybe a stub article can be created for the band. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Making a stub will actually just solve this problem. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Mice (band) albums. While C2D is a good standard to follow in most cases it is not something we should follow like automatons; a lead article does not have to exist, or even not be a redirect, in order to have a valid category. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Mice (band) albums. It was clearly the band, and not just one member of the band, who was making these albums.  The current name is just too ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Kalahari Surfers albums

 * 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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Kalahari Surfers albums to Category:Warrick Sony albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Kalahari Surfers redirects to Warrick Sony and the musical project is essentially him solo. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I did consider this when naming the category: these albums were all created under the KS alias, hence the name I chose. --John (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Response For what it's worth, there have been several examples like this in the past (e.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_17) and they have all resulted in redirection (that I've seen.) Generally, if the artist has no article, then there is no corresponding category. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? This is not a "one-man band" like the example you posted, but a group whose composition varies from album to album. --John (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per John, and my rationaile in the nomination directly above. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a one-man band, but a musical project with altering composition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Pakistan-related images

 * 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 merge WP:C2C. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Pakistan-related images to Category:Images of Pakistan
 * Nominator's rationale: Why do these two exist? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Executed Qing Dynasty people

 * 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. All of the contents are in both categories, so it would seem that there is redundancy here. I think both trees need to be looked at to see if there is close to complete overlap. If so, a global merge might be in order.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Executed Qing Dynasty people to Category:People executed by the Qing Dynasty
 * Nominator's rationale There are more articles in the target. Both cover the same topic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom Some articles on the "Executed Qing Dynasty people" are actually about members of the dynasty, but too few to warrant a specific category. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * keep as is Before discussion here, editors should understand the categories in question. This can be done by looking at the content, the purpose and the parents of the categories.  In this case, these two categories are part of entirely different category trees that serve different purposes.  Category:Executed Qing Dynasty people is a child of the nationality parent Category:Executed Chinese people, the stated purpose of which is "People of Chinese nationality who were executed. For people who were executed by China, see Category:People executed by China."   Category:People executed by the Qing Dynasty is a child of the country parent Category:People executed by China, the stated purpose of  which is "People executed by China or Chinese authorities. For people of Chinese nationality who were executed, see Category:Executed Chinese people."  These two separate category tree structures exist for 151 countries and 151 nationalities.  If this is to be changed, the entire set of category trees needs to be considered, nominated, tagged, etc.  Really, discussion should be at the highest level Category:Executions by country andCategory:Executed people by nationality, which have disparate parents as they are obviously different. Hmains (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment what of Qing people executed by other than the Qing Empire, or non-Qing executed by the Qing Empire? The new name would include the latter and exclude the former, the current name would include the former but exclude the latter. Both names cover Qing people executed by the Qing -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Further elaborating how these two category trees work for every country and nationality. Category:Executed Qing Dynasty people are Chinese people of the Qing Dynasty period who were executed either by the Qing Dynasty or any other country.  On the other hand, Category:People executed by the Qing Dynasty are people of Chinese or any other nationality who were executed by the workings of the Qing Dynasty state.  This covers all cases. Qing Dynesty people executed by the Qing state will be in both categories; other people will will be one or the other, but not both.  Hope this helps. Hmains (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply the Category:Executed Chinese people is part of a wide tree structure so I agree that it should probably be maintained. However, it raises serious questions in my mind as to the appropriateness of splitting a nationality by dynasty. Splitting by century is one thing, but by dynasty is altogether different. Why is China alone in having such a structure? If the same was to be suggested for English dynasties, it would rightly be condemned as over-categorisation. So the same comment is probably true for Category:People executed by the Qing Dynasty. "Category:People executed by China" was probably suffice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Better rename Category:People executed under the Qing Dynasty. Execution is likely to have been carried out by (or for) local officials working for the dynasty, not the emperors themselves.  Qing Dynasty is a dynasty - an imperial family.  "Qing Dynasty people" is a misnomer, since the people were its subjects, not its members.  I see no objection to using dynasties, rather than centuries for Chinese history.  The western AD/BC dating is anachronistic in China, certainly before quite recent periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the subcategories of and its subcategories use "People executed by FOO". I don't think you provide a good enough reason to depart from the standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. It is not at all clear what the difference between these two categories are.  The fact of the matter is that Chinese history is divided by dynasty much more than that of any other country.  Wikipedia is following the general patter here.  Anyway in some ways Category:People executed by the Mughal Empire is in some ways a by dynasty category, it is just that in India the dynasties displaced eachother in a different way then in China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * cmt all I can say is what I see, which is that the Chinese people category and Chinese history category are completely broken out by Dynasty; so these categories just match that pattern. Hmains (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. One is a subcategory of and the other is a subcategory of, which are completely different trees of  and . Yes, there is substantial overlap, but that doesn't necessarily justify merging the two trees into one. I do agree, however, that it might be unnecessary to divide  by dynasty. Why not just include these all in ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * comment each of the executed categories is a subcat of the people by dynesty categories found in Category:People by Imperial Chinese dynasty. It would make no sense to merge the executed dynasty categories into a non-dynasty whole. Hmains (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? If they can be otherwise categorized by dynasty, it shouldn't be a problem. It could work as one reasonable option, though it's not the only solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * because the categories are by design different. Hmains (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that this is the way it is currently set up, but why cannot they be changed in the way discussed? There seems to be no reason it wouldn't work or "make sense" in the alternate way that is discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Executed Chinese people and Category:Qing Dynasty people. The dynasty that people lived under is not important in execution cases, the dynasty that ordered their execution is.  Thus it really makes no sense to have this category, but in theory some of these people were either executed abroad, executed in China by foriegn powers (at least possibly), or executed after the end of the Qing Dynasty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar district

 * 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 Category:Amethi district. The Bushranger One ping only 06:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar district to Qing Dynasty people
 * Nominator's rationale: the district name has changed to Amethi district. Article pages have been updated with new district name. Need to move this category and its subcategories to use the right district name. GDibyendu (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case the target should be Category:Amethi district. No comment on merits.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Amethi district, this is the current name of the district and we rename categories to reflect new names of places except on very rare occasions when we create categories for both the old and new names, which I see no reason to do here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Cities and towns in Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar district

 * 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 Category:Cities and towns in Amethi district. The Bushranger One ping only 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting cities and towns in chhatrapati shahuji maharaj nagar district


 * Nominator's rationale: District name has changed to Amethi district, defined new category accordingly. This old one needs to be deleted. GDibyendu (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Cities and towns in Amethi district.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Persian-language film stubs

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Persian-language film stubs to Category:Iranian film stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: With the one exception of Indian cinema, all film stubs are by country and not language. For example, we have German film stubs, not German-language film stubs. This should be upmerged to the Iranian stub category.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I disagree. India is an example of a country with multiple languages, and as you point out, contains, , , ,  and . If Germany had films in more than one language, I would expect it to be separated as well. Persian is not the only language spoken in Iran, and this category was created to differentiate those film stubs that belong to the Persian cinema task force. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point with German-language films. That could be films from Austria or Switzerland too. French-language films don't mean they're French films, and so on. The article talkpage has the Persian cinema task force tag for Iranian films, so I see no reason reason why there should be a stub cat for the language.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * keep as is There are two different category trees: Category:Films by language and Category:Films by country which are in good standing. There is no reason to merge stubs from either of these trees into the other tree.  Hmains (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point too. Stubs, not article, are done by country, not language. See Category:Film stubs by country.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not helpful to tell others that they've "missed the point", just because they disagree with your nomination. Maybe the category simply needs to be moved, rather than merged or deleted. But with all due respect, when more than one person has provided a reason for why the category may be necessary, maybe you are the one who is missing the point... Fortdj33 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments below confirm that it is in fact you who has missed the point.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge India is a very special case, and its irregularities should not be used to mess up general by country schemes. India is one of very few places where a by language split to the film industry makes sense, and its unique issues should not be used to mess up workable by country schemes elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete per Lugnuts. There is no Category:Film stubs by language tree, and we are talking about a category created the same day as this discussion, so there is nothing to the argument we are removing these from one of the trees. Iranian film stubs is 160 films, to the 3000+ of India, and none of the arguments for why India should be an exception to the established system have been applied to Iran/Persian. --Qetuth (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per the two people above me. India is irrelevant here — it needs to be split by language because so many different languages are prominent in the country and in its film industry; in contrast, Iran has a single dominant language, so splitting its stubs by language is unhelpful.  And why would we care about Category:Films by language?  We frequently have different arrangements of stub categories and content categories (if you want to change that, you should start on a much broader forum), so you're definitely missing the point when you try to apply one category tree to the other.  Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Social protection in France

 * 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting social protection in france


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I just moved social protection in France to its correct name, welfare in France. The term social protection in this context seems nothing but a bad translation of French term for welfare, protection sociale (the French article is at fr:Protection sociale en France), so this category is simply an alternate name for Category:Welfare in France which it is already a subcat of. (On that note, a French speaker should investigate whether an article on welfare is correctly interwikid to fr:Bien-être, I don't think so, but my french is just intermediate level). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree Welfare is a standard category, Social protection is not.Hugo999 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The underlying issue here is that the process of state-organised support for economically-vulnerable can be viewed in several different ways. From one POV it is a matter of state handouts, and that perspective tends to label it as "welfare"; from another POV it is a matter of social solidarity. The latter view also applies, for example, in Ireland, where such matters are the responsibility of the Department of Social Protection. We should not impose the American concept on countries which approach these issues in a different way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The head article was correctly named, and I have now moved it back to social protection in France, in order to fit the actual terminology used in France. The nominator is free to open a WP:RM discussion if zie wishes to pursue the renaming.
 * Oppose Welfare is ambiguous. I usually take it to mean 'Health', but sometimes 'Social welfare'. The lead for social protection in France actually refers to 'financial welfare'. Keep it as Category:Social protection in France. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Oppose per BHG. --John (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The tree it is in may be "welfare", but a direct translation of the French term is probably safer. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Welfare has two distinct meanings: "well-being" (French: bien-être), and the "social state's (usually monetary) benefits" (often called the "dole" in other other side of the pond). Better to use the term that mirrors the French concept of Social Protection that has whatever aspects of both meanings of welfare the French government adopts from time to time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not delete which is what is proposed. I am neutral on a rename, but that is not proposed so I don't have to comment on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.