Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 4



Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa

 * 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 as per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 21:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting:
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Swaziland
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the Gambia
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in São Tomé and Príncipe
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Djibouti
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritius
 * Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Seychelles
 * Nominator's rationale The Church is organised as a single diocese in (each of these countries. PanchoS) Will only ever contain a single article. Delete per WP:Smallcat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — combined eight individual nominations --PanchoS (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLCAT: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." is a textbook example for this. It doesn't hurt if a dozen of these 142 categories is too small, as long as the large majority isn't. --PanchoS (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Categories/Delete List Articles I'm with PanchoS on this one: these complete a set that is generally well populated. The list articles in these categories are nuts though: I'd be all about an AfD nomination for List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a case of a reasonable exception to the small cat rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I thought I was going to vote to merge with an Africa category, but most of the dioceses are named from a city, not the country, so that (unexpectedly) I see some point in their retention. The list articles are clearly.  A list that is only ever going to have one item is a complete waste of time.  I would suggest that the list articles be converted to redirects to the one article.  We do this with articles on peerages in UK that have only ever had one holder, because the holder has no son entitled to inherit, with the result that it became extinct on his death.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2016 (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:Non-governmental organisations operating in Afghanistan

 * 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 to Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting non-governmental organisations operating in afghanistan


 * Nominator's rationale: In line with Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5 Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to parent category Category:Organisations based in Afghanistan per the results of the previous discussion. These categories were not simply deleted, they were merged to others. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I had expected this to be listing all the aid organisations with operations there, which I would have complained about as being a performance by performer category, but it is not like that at present. My only query is whether all are based in, rather than a neighbouring country.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (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:Bissau-Guinean law

 * 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. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bissau-Guinean law to Category:Law in Guinea-Bissau
 * Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people categories, and this cat is a mixture of topics referring both to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau", and particular occupations of people. MSJapan (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * do not change This category is named to match the other 249 sub-categories in Category:Law by country. There is no good reason to make this an exception to the pattern.  If anything must be changed, it needs to be Category:Bissau-Guinea law Hmains (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bissau-Guinea" is not a valid adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. There's no country named "Bissau-Guinea". It's Guinea-Bissau. No preference in regard to or . --PanchoS (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question The demonym listed in the Guinea-Bissau article based on the CIA Factbook is "Bissau-Guinean". Is that not accurate? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Law in Guinea-Bissau, the suggested denonym is confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Category:Law by country uses the "FOOian law" form, and "Bissau-Guinean" is the correct FOOian for Guinea-Bissau. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Cambridge dictionary provides "Guinea-Bissauan" as the main variant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They were all changed to "Bissau-Guinean" here, which was based on this. I've seen both in use. I have no idea which is more common. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename to in this case. There we have a naming solution that is not only easily recognizable, but consistent with the cat tree and the sort order. --PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This renaming back would make the category inconsistent with other subcategories in that use the FOOian form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another comment, the government of Guina-Bissau uses both adjectives even on a single page: . In that case I would suggest using Guinea-Bissauan in Wikipedia throughout, as the more intuitive variant. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally support -- Occasionally, we have to have category names that do not fit the standard pattern. In this case it is because there is no satisfactory demonym.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are neither possibilities satisfactory? It seems to me that both are good, we just need to choose which one to use and be consistent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (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:Bissau-Guinean society

 * 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. It's not clear whether Bissau-Guinean or Guinea-Bissauan is correct. Sources use both. Consistency is probably desirable, but there's no consensus one way or the other at the moment. If this is renominated in the future, I recommend nominating all Bissau-Guinean categories together. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bissau-Guinean society to Category:Society of Guinea-Bissau
 * Nominator's rationale: The "Bissau-Guinea" convention is used only for specific people. The cat content here are overarching general topics referring to the country, which is referred to as "Guinea-Bissau". MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * do not change This category was named to match the other 225+ sub-categories found in the Category:Society by nationality category. There is no reason to make this an exception to the pattern. Hmains (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. There's no country named "Bissau-Guinea". It's Guinea-Bissau. --PanchoS (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Combine This nomination should match the outcome of the one above, whether I agree with it or not. (And, at this point, I'm neutral.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Category:Society by nationality uses the "FOOian society" form, and "Bissau-Guinean" is the correct FOOian for Guinea-Bissau. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Cambridge dictionary provides "Guinea-Bissauan" as the main variant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They were all changed to "Bissau-Guinean" here, which was based on this. I've seen both in use. I have no idea which is more common. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename to in this case. There we have a naming solution that is not only easily recognizable, but consistent with the cat tree and the sort order. --PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This renaming back would make the category inconsistent with other subcategories in that use the FOOian form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * REanme to Category:Society in Guinea-Bissau. We need a non-standard solution, because there is no satisfactory demonym.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are neither possibilities satisfactory? It seems to me that both are good, we just need to choose which one to use and be consistent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (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:Poverty-related probems

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting poverty-related probems


 * Nominator's rationale: Typo aside, the term "problems" seems inappropriate here - it's POV to describe the activity or existence of dumpster divers, squatters and squeegee men as "problems". Could rename to "Poverty-related issues", but that doesn't seem very different to just "Category:Poverty". McGeddon (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete in the spirit of WP:OCASSOC, many of these problems/issues seem to have a mere collateral relationship with poverty, this applies especially to the child categories. It would probably be best to upmerge the content to Category:Social problems but not (or only very selectively) to Category:Poverty. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete next we'll have Category:Wealth-related benefits? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- These are all issues that arise from poverty: "consequences of poverty"? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting a rename. Perhaps that's an option. However these issues are so complex, I wonder if ever social sciences will establish what is the consequence or cause of what. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (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:Converts to Sufism

 * 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: double merge, manually checking for each article whether that is indeed appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting converts to sufism


 * Nominator's rationale: One does not convert to Sufism as it is not a sect or denomination of Islam, rather, it is the spiritual dimension. People can embrace Sufi teachings, but they cannot convert to Sufism. This is the rationale provided by Aynalqudat, however, WP:PROD is only valid on articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * True. However, upmerge to both parent categories. --PanchoS (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete but add Category:Converts to Islam if it applies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Double merge to the appropriate national sub-cat of, where needed, and to where appropriate. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:35, 11 June 2016 (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.

Organizations based in Thailand

 * 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. There is no strong national tie one way or the other, but the parent category is "organizations", so the arguments to rename are strong. We really do need a definitive guideline on which countries use which variant, but that's a much larger discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Women's organisations in Thailand to Category:Women's organizations in Thailand
 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct organisations of Thailand to Category:Defunct organizations of Thailand
 * Nominator's rationale: Following head category and siblings renamed per consensus at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_20. Opposed speedy nominations (note: the others below were processed under WP:C2E). – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Youth organisations in Thailand to Category:Youth organizations in Thailand – C2C: Parent cats use z. Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 45 use organisation and 41 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Also, mother category was previously moved from Organisations based in Thailand. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Women's organisations in Thailand to Category:Women's organizations in Thailand – C2C: Parent cats use z. Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 22 use organisation and 10 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Religious organisations in Thailand to Category:Religious organizations in Thailand – C2C: Parent cats use z. Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 48 use organisation and 18 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Defunct organisations of Thailand to Category:Defunct organizations of Thailand – C2C: Parent cats use z. Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 34 use organisation and 19 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Human rights organisations in Thailand to Category:Human rights organizations in Thailand – C2C: Parent cats use z. Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 35 use organisation and 25 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Cultural organisations in Thailand to Category:Cultural organizations in Thailand – C2C: To match parent Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Within, 37 use organisation and 14 use organization, so it's far from an established convention for that category tree. Place Clichy (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all organisation-organization moves makes a very valid point. Further discuss is needed here. WP:RETAIN may apply as well. AusLondonder (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - the general rule of thumb seems to be -z- for the Americas and -s- for the Commonwealth, Europe, and Africa (unless local usage deems otherwise). Non-Commonwealth Asia is the one blind spot in that system. Grutness...wha?  07:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This was previously discussed at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 20. Also, all but one of the nominated categories were only created within the past week; WP:RETAIN shouldn't carry much weight here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder would you withdraw your objection, given the above full discussion which renamed the Thailand categories to the -z- spelling? Or would you consent to renaming, in which case they can be done speedily under C2E? – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that CFD is extraordinary. It renamed the parent cat here arbitrarily. The premise of the CFD was incorrect. It argued that "organization" is acceptable in British English. It isn't. No British media use that the "organization" spelling. Oxford spelling is largely deprecated in the UK. Even the University of Oxford staff don't use it. The Times dropped -ize in 1992. Even publications such as The Economist use -ise. The -ize spelling has never had any traction in Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India or in Ireland. The European Union and its agencies uses the -ise spelling. That CFD seemed rather nationalistic to me. It violated WP:RETAIN. The CFD cited WP:COMMONALITY. Yet that policy states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" Additionally, the CFD was contentious. It was opposed/questioned by several editors who didn't formally express opposition. If you look in the category tree Category:Organizations by country many use the -ise spelling. Attempting to forcibly impose American spelling project-wide is unacceptable. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am happy to consent. I have better things to do with my time than argue about the spelling of organisation.Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think moving these categories sets a bad precedent. The CFD was deeply flawed, it violated the spirit and letter of our policies, and subsequent CFD's have shown more respect for allowing diversity of spelling varieties on the project. We are a global project, not an American one. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a whole other ball of wax, but I think that there is at least a decent argument that could be made that when we are dealing with a country that is non-English speaking and does not otherwise have a close connection or tie to one form of English or another, Oxford spelling should be used. The only reason I say this is that the UN and its specialized bodies have adopted Oxford spelling, and so it may represent a form of English that is familiar in some of these countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument, you do make a good point. I have a feeling though that quite a lot of objections would be raised by editors such as Paul012 to moving categories such as Category:National trade union centers of South Korea to Category:National trade union centres of South Korea or Category:Labor in Taiwan to Category:Labour in Taiwan. There's certainly ample opportunity to do that if we decide on Oxford spelling as a default. The question is whether we just leave it up to the creator in the absence of national ties, given that both organisation and organization are understood to mean the same thing. I think the CFD in 2014 was a serious mistake, given that WP:COMMONALITY currently reads "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" and given that WP:RETAIN should have prevented that move. Furthermore, most editors expressed some form of opposition so the close as rename should have been challenged in my view. It didn't create a precedent (which should be established project-wide) as other CFD's of a similar vein have not been successful. AusLondonder (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly think that things in practice have gone the way more of RETAIN than of trying to adopt some consistent standard for non-English speaking places. I personally think it would be a good idea to adopt an "international" standard for these cases, but like you I can foresee that there would be pushback. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something I would consider supporting as Wikipedia is the sort of publication you could expect to use Oxford spelling as a default (in non-TIES cases). And Oxford spelling combines elements of both "British" and "American" spelling. Just a question, do you know when the now deleted Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created? AusLondonder (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The original Category:Organisations based in Thailand was created in 2006; I have undeleted the history. Before that it was at Category:Thai organisations which was created in Sept 2005. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder, I don't personally have any issue against non-Oxford British spelling (which I personally use outside of Wikipedia articles), and much less care for categories related to South Korea or Taiwan, of whose English usage patterns I know nothing. My proposed renames have only been in response to prior proposals that attempted to harmonise usage within each country-related category tree (see Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9). Now supporting that attempt might not have been a great idea, seeing as it's stirring up such a fuss now, but the whole idea is still debatable as both WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR are directed at usage within article text, and don't mention categories at all. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , following this edit, would you consent or object to speedy renaming to the spelling "Women's organizations in Thailand"? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and per Category:Organizations based in Thailand. Oculi (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename and let's seriously consider Oxford spelling as a standard for non-WP:TIES countries. --PanchoS (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:RETAIN which states "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change" and WP:COMMONALITY which states "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia". Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 20 was totally flawed. should justify why they moved the Category:Organisations based in Thailand to organizations when it had been stable at that title since 2005 and more editors specifically opposed the nomination than supported it. We should overturn that CfD rather than go further in the direction of imposing Oxford/American uniform spelling without consent. I wouldn't specifically oppose default Oxford spelling. But editors will have to realise Oxford spelling will result in significant project-wide changes. Color, Movie theater, Self-defense, Television program all use American spelling. Will they and the countless other articles and categories move? AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I said: let's seriously consider it. If such a proposal had substantial support and would once for all end this awful territorial marking in both article mainspace and categories, then major but straightforward change might be acceptable, though we'd need a rollout strategy. Alternatively, we might want to start an extensive article on the spelling of English by country, that could then be condensed into an authoritative list of countries predominantly using this or that variant. --PanchoS (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, let's at least consistently apply one type of ENGVAR within a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree but Category:Organisations based in Thailand was stable from 2005. It was moved in a totally flawed way that the admin must explain. AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom - PanchoS's suggestion is worth looking into. Neutralitytalk 16:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename. As I suggested in the speedy discussion, I would support using Oxford spelling as a default when the country does not have ties to any particular form of English. The UN and other international organizations use Oxford spelling, so that creates a type of "tie", weak though it may be, from that country to a form of English. Having a default rule would resolve many issues such as this. I think that this could be applied to category space before we worry about applying it to article space. And I don't think we need to be concerned about how it would affect Color, Movie theater, Self-defense, or Television program, since those are general articles and not tied to any one country in particular. My suggested approach would only apply Oxford spelling to (1) topics that have a tie to a particular country and (2) that country does not have a tie to a particular form of English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert other changes. Enough of American cultural imperialism.  I do not know which is the culturally appropriate ENGVAR.  Whether American (due to the effects of R&R during the Vietnam war) or British (because it is next to Malaysia and near India, which use British orthography).  Altering categories to match a global parent is exactly what we should not be doing.  Perhaps the Admin needs a lesson in ENGVAR conventions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the assumption that "American imperialism" is behind this? It could just as well be "Oxford spelling imperialism". But why not assume good faith and not presume either? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2016 (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:Beer and breweries by country

 * 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: renamed. The majority successfully argued that "beer by country" also includes breweries and is simpler title. Others also noted that the new name would allow separate categorization for breweries, whether it be by subcats or a split. I don't think that question has been fully resolved, so if someone would like to formally propose that in a new discussion, that might be fruitful. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Beer and breweries by country to Category:Beer by country
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Albania to Category:Beer in Albania
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Argentina to Category:Beer in Argentina
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Armenia to Category:Beer in Armenia


 * Category:Beer and breweries in Australia to Category:Beer in Australia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Austria to Category:Beer in Austria
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Azerbaijan to Category:Beer in Azerbaijan
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Belarus to Category:Beer in Belarus
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Belgium to Category:Beer in Belgium
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Bolivia to Category:Beer in Bolivia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Bosnia and Herzegovina‎ to Category:Beer in Bosnia and Herzegovina‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Brazil to Category:Beer in Brazil
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Bulgaria to Category:Beer in Bulgaria
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Cambodia to Category:Beer in Cambodia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Canada to Category:Beer in Canada
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Channel Islands‎ to Category:Beer in the Channel Islands‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Chile to Category:Beer in Chile
 * Category:Beer and breweries in China to Category:Beer in China
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Colombia to Category:Beer in Colombia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Costa Rica to Category:Beer in Costa Rica
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Croatia to Category:Beer in Croatia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Cuba to Category:Beer in Cuba
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Cyprus to Category:Beer in Cyprus
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Czech Republic‎ to Category:Beer in the Czech Republic‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Denmark to Category:Beer in Denmark
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Estonia to Category:Beer in Estonia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Ethiopia to Category:Beer in Ethiopia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Finland to Category:Beer in Finland
 * Category:Beer and breweries in France to Category:Beer in France
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Germany to Category:Beer in Germany
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Greece to Category:Beer in Greece
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Hong Kong to Category:Beer in Hong Kong
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Hungary to Category:Beer in Hungary
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Iceland to Category:Beer in Iceland
 * Category:Beer and breweries in India to Category:Beer in India
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Indonesia to Category:Beer in Indonesia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland to Category:Beer in Ireland
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Israel to Category:Beer in Israel
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Italy to Category:Beer in Italy
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Japan to Category:Beer in Japan
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Kenya to Category:Beer in Kenya
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Korea to Category:Beer in Korea
 * Category:Beer and breweries in North Korea to Category:Beer in North Korea
 * Category:Beer and breweries in South Korea to Category:Beer in South Korea
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Laos to Category:Beer in Laos
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Latvia to Category:Beer in Latvia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Lebanon to Category:Beer in Lebanon
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Lithuania to Category:Beer in Lithuania
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Luxembourg to Category:Beer in Luxembourg
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Malaysia to Category:Beer in Malaysia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Malta to Category:Beer in Malta
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Isle of Man‎ to Category:Beer in the Isle of Man
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Mexico to Category:Beer in Mexico
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Montenegro to Category:Beer in Montenegro
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Mexico to Category:Beer in Mexico
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Netherlands‎ to Category:Beer in the Netherlands‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in New Zealand to Category:Beer in New Zealand
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Nigeria to Category:Beer in Nigeria
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Norway to Category:Beer in Norway
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Pakistan to Category:Beer in Pakistan
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Palestinian territories‎ to Category:Beer in the State of Palestine (anticipating this other CfD)
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Panama to Category:Beer in Panama
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Peru to Category:Beer in Peru
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the Philippines‎ to Category:Beer in the Philippines‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Poland to Category:Beer in Poland
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Portugal to Category:Beer in Portugal
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Romania to Category:Beer in Romania
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Russia to Category:Beer in Russia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Serbia to Category:Beer in Serbia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Singapore to Category:Beer in Singapore
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Slovakia to Category:Beer in Slovakia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Slovenia to Category:Beer in Slovenia
 * Category:Beer and breweries in South Africa to Category:Beer in South Africa
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Spain to Category:Beer in Spain
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Sri Lanka to Category:Beer in Sri Lanka
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Suriname to Category:Beer in Suriname
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Sweden to Category:Beer in Sweden
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Switzerland to Category:Beer in Switzerland
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Syria to Category:Beer in Syria
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Taiwan to Category:Beer in Taiwan
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Thailand to Category:Beer in Thailand
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Turkey to Category:Beer in Turkey
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Ukraine to Category:Beer in Ukraine
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom‎ to Category:Beer in the United Kingdom‎
 * Category:Beer and breweries in the United States to Category:Beer in the United States
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Venezuela to Category:Beer in Venezuela
 * Category:Beer and breweries in Vietnam to Category:Beer in Vietnam


 * Nominator's rationale: These categories include beer styles, beer brands, beer culture, beer festivals, yes and brewing companies. Main articles include Beer in Germany, Beer in Belgium, Beer in France, Beer in Canada, or Beer in Australia, to name a few. The proper umbrella term therefore is to be further subdivided as necessary. PanchoS (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * do not change The fact that this category tree includes not only brewing companies but also the physical brewing plants, breweries, means that the current name is the most inclusive and helpful to the reader trying to navigate to the underlying articles--the purpose of categories.  Hmains (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even now, the brewers aren't mentioned, so how about a rename to ? No, just kidding. I plainly disagree with the need to spell out every variation of the general topic which simply is: beer. --PanchoS (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, no need to mention subtopics.  Sandstein   17:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The present name covers well the breadth of the subject. Do not forget that a lot of the beer drunk in Russia in the 18th century was brewed in Burton-upon-Trent.  Which of the target categories would that be in?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. We don't need to mention the subtopics. The general topic is beer. The suggestion that it could potentially be makes the point well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. As per WP:CAT, singular category names are topic categories and properly include subcategories and articles related to the topic. "Beer by country" is singular, so it's a topic category. Breweries are related to beer. Therefore, breweries can properly be categorized under "Beer by country". Given that, there's no need for the longer name. ~ RobTalk 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The categories were created and named in order to bring together numerous separate categories, some of which focused on beer, others of which focused on breweries. Some breweries no longer make beer, so are included in cats such as Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States which is a subcat of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Take "breweries" out of Category:Beer and breweries in the United States, and some may feel that defunct breweries do not belong in a beer cat, and so it gets removed. Others may feel that as the cat no longer specifies "breweries", what would be needed is a cat specifically for Category:Breweries in the United States, so the categorisation of breweries gets separated from beer, and we have two parallel cat systems which contain much crossover - essentially duplicating the categorisation as people may be inclined to put beer brands, such as Heineken, which carry the same name as the brewery, into both the beer and the brewery cat. Care would need to be taken to ensure that the new brewery cat organisation structure would not become separated from the umbrella cat and so make it more difficult for readers to research on a given topic. Under the present name it is clear that both the beer and the breweries go in the umbrella cat, after which they can separate into subcats as appropriate. I'm not sure we could keep all related topics together if we drop the "breweries" word from the name. If I had the time I would link here the discussions the Beer Wikiproject had in creating the Beer and breweries cats so we could revisit the reasoning to see if it is still valid several years down the line. I am not opposing (or supporting) this proposal, but I am not clear on how helpful it would be, while I can see it being problematic.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United States is a subcat of Category:Brewing companies of the United States, which would of course remain a subcat of, as or  do. Of course, we have to standardize the per-country-categories within , but that's a minor followup task. --PanchoS (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't explained my concern clearly enough. I understand that existing subcats will remain in the renamed cat at the point of renaming. My concern is that someone may be inclined to remove them at a later date because it is not clear why a defunct brewery article should be in a beer cat. The rationale at the time of creating was, same as Category:Food and drink, to bring together two main and related topics under one umbrella term. I am not clear in this proposal why it is felt more helpful to remove the word breweries than it would be to leave it in. The explain is "The proper umbrella term therefore is " which is not an explanation, but an assertion. I assume there is a rationale behind this as others have agreed, so that is why I am not opposing. But at this point, having read through the discussion, it is still not clear to me how helpful it is, whereas I am concerned it would require monitoring after the name change to prevent drift toward parallel cat systems which split rather than coming together in an appropriate umbrella. Given that before we created this umbrella cat there were distinct brewery and beer cat systems which did not meet together, I am wondering what is in place now to stop that happening again. I will look for the earlier discussions to see if they might be helpful.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would a user really remove an article about a brewery because they would not understand why a brewery article should be in a beer category? I suppose it depends on how thick users are, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly, because a brewery may not appear logically to belong in a subset of beer. Like Category:Farms and Category:Cattle, while connected, are not a subset of the other, but go up different routes to Category:Agriculture. The more I think of this, the more I think that perhaps Category:Brewing should be the umbrella cat, and that would allow Category:Breweries and Category:Beer to develop separate lines which can come together at Category:Brewing.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. OK, I've thought about this, and I see no advantage to the rename, but a potential for beer articles to become categorised along a different route to brewery articles. What I think would be worthwhile, however, is a  shuffle of the cat system to make Category:Brewing the umbrella cat above Category:Beer and Category:Breweries.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not totally against your proposal, but wouldn't that still involve splitting into  and, with  being the parent category that holds the two together? --PanchoS (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Question to I see you have at least started the restructure that you suggested. I'm confused as you seem to have reversed your position expressed above, about articles that describe both a beer brand and a brewery company: these (many) articles would need to be categorised in both of the parallel hierarchies that you now seem to favour.  Please would you expand on what you propose and why? – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't feel right to have Category:Brewing as the top category. I would expect Category:Beer on top, while I would expect Category:Brewing to focus specifically on the brewing process. Taking that in mind, I support the nominated proposal which would keep Beer on top of each country. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Rename. We need a separate tree structure for breweries. The current category is as bad as "movie studio and films" category would be. Shudder. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:50, 10 August 2016 (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:Dairy farming by country

 * 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.

Note that, as almost all per-country subcategories don't contain a single article on actual dairy farming, I'm proposing a full rename. Given there is enough content, "Dairy farming in foo" subcategories may of course be split off the respective umbrella category. PanchoS (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Dairy farming in Argentina to Category:Dairy in Argentina
 * Category:Dairy farming in Australia to Category:Dairy in Australia
 * Category:Dairy farming in Canada to Category:Dairy in Canada
 * Category:Dairy farming in Chile to Category:Dairy in Chile
 * Category:Dairy farming in Denmark to Category:Dairy in Denmark
 * Category:Dairy farming in France to Category:Dairy in France
 * Category:Dairy farming in Hong Kong to Category:Dairy in Hong Kong
 * Category:Dairy farming in India to Category:Dairy in India
 * Category:Dairy farming in New Zealand to Category:Dairy in New Zealand
 * Category:Dairy farming in Pakistan to Category:Dairy in Pakistan
 * Category:Dairy farming in Serbia to Category:Dairy in Serbia
 * Category:Dairy farming in the United Arab Emirates to Category:Dairy in the United Arab Emirates
 * Category:Dairy farming in the United Kingdom to Category:Dairy in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Dairy farming in the United States to Category:Dairy in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Dairy may refer to the establishment where milk is processed, which isn't strictly part of "dairy farming". "Dairy" is however also used as a synonym of the Dairy industry as a whole, which includes farming, processing, marketing, and the actual products. It is therefore best suited as an umbrella category that may (and often does) include all of these branches.
 * Strong oppose - in my type of education, and Engvar region, I have never heard of dairy operations, farming or production called just dairy - if you dont like 'farming' per se, why not dairy production or industry JarrahTree 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know your "ENGVAR region", but please see the Free Dictionary, Cambridge dictionary, Oxford dictionary, Collins dictionary. They all refer to "dairy" as a stand-alone noun aggregating the whole sector, including farming, processing, selling, and the actual products. --PanchoS (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment regardless of the 'proof' of the links provided, I still think for a category here on wikipedia it would be better to have a qualifier, I would say 'dairy industry' is more amenable to common understanding and approachable than the singular 'dairy' JarrahTree 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From an economic, Western-focussed point of view I would agree with "dairy industry" being a good term, but from a cultural, historical or food consumption perspective, it's not – perspectives that prevail in the Global South much more than in the Western world where we're tending to industrialize everything. But let others weigh in. --PanchoS (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I dont think the naming of a category needs to carry (or not) the load of the curse of the western world - lets hope others do, (anthropologically speaking from my fieldwork experience in south east asia I would have elicited complete and utter blank looks as to what the hell the word meant, unless I used the word milk...) JarrahTree 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a common term outside the US. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment According to JarrahTree above "Dairy" will make many south east asians have a blank look, and it is also weird for at least one portuguese guy (that is, me). My usual online english dictionary completely failed me this time: "S: (n) dairy, dairy farm (a farm where dairy products are produced)". So, Can we get something with milk on the name? milk industry? milk production? milk products?... none sounds great, I know... but dairy sounds even worse, to me - Nabla (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dairy farming means keeping cows for milk. A dairy is the place where milk is processed to make it ready for sale.  These are different things, though both aspects of the same process.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (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:South Korean television miniseries
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: redirect after the category had already been emptied before closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting south korean television miniseries


 * Nominator's rationale: Most Korean dramas are in miniseries format. This category is redundant with Category:South Korean drama television series. Random86 (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then redirect rather than delete, as this category name is liable to be used again. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:03, 4 June 2016 (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:Inspirational television series
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting inspirational television series


 * Nominator's rationale: This category seems very unclear and subjective. What is the criteria for inclusion in this category? Random86 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment While the criteria seem rather fuzzy to me, we do have an article on inspirational fiction. However it currently mostly covers inspirational fiction in literature, citing as examples the works of Albert Camus, J. R. R. Tolkien, J. D. Salinger, and Harper Lee. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and likewise Category:Inspirational works and Category:Inspirational literature should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2016 (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:Non-governmental organization stubs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting non-governmental organization stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: The main category has been deleted Rathfelder (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you were thinking of the "by country" and "by subject" hierarchies which were deleted at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_5 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_14. However, the parent Category:Non-governmental organizations still exists. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of those stubs belong in their country category. And if we don't want a vast collection of articles to appear in Category:Non-governmental organizations  what are we going to do about it?Rathfelder (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It may well be appropriate to have them in a by county stub-cat as well, but that is no reason for deleting this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2016 (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:Security issues
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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/rename as nominated. The AFD resulted in the articles being renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Security issues to Category:National security
 * Propose renaming Category:Security issues by country to Category:National security by country (added June 5)
 * Propose renaming Category:Security issues in Colombia to Category:National security in Colombia (added June 5)
 * Propose renaming Category:Security issues in Slovenia to Category:National security in Slovenia (added June 5)
 * Propose renaming Category:Security issues in Yemen to Category:National security in Yemen (added June 5)
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This relates to the merge proposal only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * True, but deleting only the parent categories would create orphan categories. Please nominate all of them, and I will support your nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain more precisely how you would like me to revise the nomination? (Btw please note that I've proposed a merge, not a delete, so there won't be any orphans.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you would also rename to,  to ,  to , and  to . --PanchoS (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I'll add those for the sake of consistent naming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support "National security" is definitely better than "Security issues". On second thought, "National security of Colombia" etc. would be even better. And on third thought, given the limited content we have for these three countries, we might also go further merging to  and renaming the others accordingly to   etc. so it matches . --PanchoS (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's go for your third thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Our articles are at Security issues in Colombia etc. I don't oppose this nomination on the merits, but we should rename the articles first, not the categories. ~ RobTalk 07:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but Security issues in Bulgaria, Security issues in Colombia, Security issues in Germany would be renamed to "National security in…" so in the case of Colombia wouldn't constitute main article of the nominated category anymore. --PanchoS (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but only if we make the decision to go with security over national security for the category name. I would like to see the latter. National security is a big enough topic that it warrants a category. For instance, Category:National security in Colombia could be populated with List of political hostages held by FARC, FARC, Colombian conflict, National Liberation Army (Colombia), and so on. Category:Terrorism in Colombia could be a subcategory. I seriously doubt that any modern country couldn't populate a category on national security. Compare to security, which could feasibly include things like AlliedBarton in the United States. Those are very different topics. ~ RobTalk 08:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so this nomination should probably be withdrawn or postponed, until Talk:Security issues in Colombia has been concluded. --PanchoS (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (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.

Years in international relations
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 301 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 304 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 310 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 314 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 319 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 320 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 324 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 330 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 337 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 345 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 350 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 351 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 357 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 369 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 384 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 385 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 386 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 388 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 390 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 397 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 398 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 400 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 405 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 407 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 409 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 410 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 411 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 418 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 420 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 445 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 450 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 477 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 479 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 493 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 500 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 518 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 502 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 512 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 519 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 527 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 528 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 534 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 535 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 536 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 539 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 543 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 544 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 550 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 552 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 557 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 568 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 569 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 570 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 581 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 584 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 585 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 588 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 590 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 600 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 610 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 618 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 624 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 629 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 632 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 640 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 651 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 661 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 668 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 669 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 680 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 681 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 697 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 698 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 699 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 708 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 710 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 711 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 714 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 717 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 718 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 721 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 736 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 737 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 742 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 744 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 746 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 750 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 751 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 752 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 753 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 756 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 760 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 774 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 775 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 776 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 780 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 782 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 787 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 788 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 790 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 795 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 799 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 800 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 802 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 804 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 819 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 821 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 839 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 840 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 843 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 846 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 847 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 849 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 851 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 853 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 855 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 856 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 861 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 862 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 864 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 867 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 868 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 872 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 876 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 877 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 878 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 879 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 885 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 888 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 889 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 890 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 892 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 896 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 898 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 900 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 901 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 903 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 908 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 909 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 910 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 917 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 918 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 919 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 920 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 923 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 924 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 926 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 927 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 930 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 932 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 933 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 934 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 936 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 937 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 938 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 939 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 941 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 942 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 947 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 948 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 950 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 951 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 953 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 954 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 957 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 959 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 960 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 961 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 964 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 965 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 967 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 970 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 972 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 973 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 975 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 976 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 979 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 980 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 981 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 982 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 987 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 992 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 995 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 997 in international relations


 * Propose deleting 999 in international relations


 * Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:C1, as the only content are subcategories of single state (dis)establishments that are not about international relations. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge all to their parent categories Category:nnn in politics, Category:nnn' by country and Category:n''th century in international relations. --PanchoS (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we consider an RFC or something about whether the state establishments/disestablishment cats belong in international relations at all? If we do that, I suspect we'll have a number of more empty categories that could be C1 deleted. I put them there as I believe that that's the way the current years are done but it may just be better to be consistent for all time rather than on a WP:SMALLCAT concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually SMALLCAT plays a role here, indirectly. If, hypothetically, there would have been a large number of treaties and battles in every year category of international relations, nobody would have bothered that the state (dis)establishments have crept in these international relations categories as well. But it's overcategorization to have so many international relations year categories just for the sake of hosting the state (dis)establishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue was the (dis)establishments categories themselves. If not, then I support upmerger for each category to the century category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The direct issue is the (dis)establishment categories. As said, SMALLCAT plays an indirect role. Because of the latter, I would also be fine with an upmerge as you proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In principle, Support -- I would however have preferred to see up deal first with the (dis)establishment categories that are the sole content, by merging them into century categories. This would leave these empty, and they would be deleted as a matter of course.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2016 (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:Populist parties in the Czech Republic
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.

While the implicit inclusion criteria for political parties as being "populist" were found both too subjective and too unspecific in a previous CfD consensus, where I had nominated the subsequently deleted. A categorization under the political concept of Populism, allowing more specific subcategories to define useful inclusion criteria, however seems perfectly acceptable. PanchoS (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: rename. There's no consensus to upmerge and get rid of this category entirely, but there's no opposition to renaming. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Populist parties in the Czech Republic to Category:Populism in the Czech Republic
 * Category:Populist parties in the Netherlands to Category:Populism in the Netherlands
 * Nominator's rationale: Bringing these ones in line with Category:Populism in the United States.

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion should focus on choosing between renaming vs. upmerging.
 * Support generally but we may also need to upmerge to Category:Political parties in the Czech Republic (or whatever it should be), etc. That is unless populism can be robustly defined in these countries.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: see related discussion Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 14. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alternative offered by Peterkingiron to upmerge to Category:Political parties in the Czech Republic etc.; note that in the previous discussion the US category was deleted rather than merged to Populism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 03:55, 4 June 2016 (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:American music history by year
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:American music history by year to Category:Years in American music
 * Category:British music history by year to Category:Years in British music
 * Category:Irish music history by year to Category:Years in Irish music
 * Category:Japanese music history by year to Category:Years in Japanese music
 * Category:Nigerian music history by year to Category:Years in Nigerian music
 * Category:Norwegian music history by year to Category:Years in Norwegian music
 * Category:Slovak music history by year to Category:Years in Slovak music
 * Category:South Korean music history by year to Category:Years in South Korean music
 * Nominator's rationale: per consistency with parent category, all child categories, and similar categories such as: , , , . PanchoS (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree: if they are all changed, including Australia (below) Hugo999 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Australian music history by year to Category:Years in Australian music
 * Comment thanks Hugo for pointing the omission of Australia JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support JarrahTree 02:43, 4 June 2016 (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:Recipients of the Military Cross (Belgium)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Cross (Belgium)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
 * The Military Cross (Belgium) is automatically given for 25 years of service in the Belgian military. According to the article, the award was established in 1885 and about 300 are currently issued every year so this award is not rare. A years of service award doesn't seem defining and there is no master list of recipients, making it hard to verify individual membership in this category. I complete list is not possible but I made sure all the contents of this category are here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Belgium. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Green  C  01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This award is non-defining to those who were awarded it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a long service award. We don't have categories for those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2016 (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:Scottish Science Hall of Fame
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Scottish Science Hall of Fame
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * In 2005, the National Library of Scotland held on online poll on their web site to select the top 10 most popular deceased Scottish scientists of all time (source). We have no article on this award, just a redirect that points to that library article which makes no mention of the award. James Watt died 1819 and Alexander Graham Bell 1922: it's hard to see how either is defined by a web site celebrating them in 2005. I listed the current contents of the category here on the talk page in case someone thinks they can overcome WP:N to create a list article. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Mais oui! as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Scotland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Green  C  01:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Most halls of fame categories are OCAWARD categories. If there is a physical hall, with statues, pictures, memorabilia, etc (i.e. a museum), there may be some merit in such a category, but anyone could set up an Internet site virtual hall.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2016 (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.