The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category could be problematic for a number of reasons. Unless the subjects define themselves as white supremacists the inclusion in the category is too subjective. Also, someone who believes in white supremacy in 2015 differs from someone who lived in 1776 when it was the status quo. A large percentage of historical figures would be candidates for this category. Abraham Lincoln could be listed, since it is well-documented that he believed in white supremacy while still advocating for the Emancipation Proclamation. B1db2 (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Rather than speculation and fear, reading the category articles shows that the people are well documented as being white supremacists and generally clear on that point--regardless of the time period involved. Hmains (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, there's a historical context to white supremacy, but disbanding the category seems rash. People in 1776 would be unlikely to be defined by their white supremacy. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a widely held (though in my opinion reprehensible)political view. Some people are defined by it (and should be included), while where it is an incidental characteristic, they should not. That is a matter that can be resolved by means of a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I reverse my nomination. I am concerned though about where to draw the line. There is a huge grey area here. Many public figures could be added to the category because people believe it defines them. Should we, for example, add Woodrow Wilson (given the current debate at Princeton)? Is his white supremacy incidental or a key feature, considering many of his discriminatory policies? Also to Peterkingiron, what is the political view that you feel is reprehensible? I did not say that white supremacy is any less abhorrent because it was commonplace in the past. I am only concerned about the misuse of a label. B1db2 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The proposed Irish literature by century categories will parallel the categories for American, British, French, German & Slovene literature by century (e.g. Category:19th-century American literature). They will also link to 18th, 19th & 20th century in Ireland categoriues. The three Irish poems by century categories contain only 2, 2 & 5 poems or 9 total; while the category Category:Irish poems has 53 in the main category alone; so only a few Irish poems are in these 3 categories. Other than Ireland, poems by century/decade/year are not diffused by nationality. Most of the Irish poems in the 3 categories are also in the correct “poems by year” category. Hugo999 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. Established WP:NC for "medical doctors" categories is to use "physicians" rather than "doctors", as the latter term can be ambiguous as to whether it refers to a medical doctor, or to any academic with a Ph.D. in any subject at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- I am not sure about Italy, but in other parts of Europe (e.g. UK),physician is a speciality within medicine. Please do not apply American nomenclature to the rest of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Clearly one category. No opinion on whether the target category should be Physicians or Medical Doctors but just "doctors" is too broad and could include PhDs. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Italian medical doctors. I really think that this is the rename we should use in all cases, including in the US. From my experience although Americans use physician and medical doctor as synonyms (unlike the British), medical doctor is more common (well, actually most common is doctor, but that is too ambiguous), so we should just name the whole tree that. I just have never felt motivated enough to nominate the tree for renaming, but will push it here. The Eng var issues could be solved with universal use of medical doctor, and no one anywhere would feel marginalized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories for regions of the North Island and South Island of New Zealand
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These are subcategories of Category:Regions of New Zealand. All 16 pages in these two categories are also in Category:Regions of New Zealand. The regions are official first-level administrative subdivisions of New Zealand. The North Island and the South Island are not official subdivisions of New Zealand, so there seems no reason to divide the regions into these two categories. Nurg (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't this be accomplished just by putting the articles about the regions in the appropriate island category? Why does it justify actual subdivision of a category that is about administrative subdivisions and not about island geography at all? Good Ol’factory(talk)06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a mixing of bare geography with administrative subdivisions. There is no significance of a region being on the South Island as compared to one on the North Island. Therefore, the articles about the regions can simply be included in Category:North Island and Category:South Island, as appropriate; there is no reason to require an artificial subdivision of the subdivisions category. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—for some purposes the upper South Island has been administratively part of the Central region based in Wellington (bottom of North Island). For example the Central Regional Health Authority included the Nelson-Marlborough CHE along with Capital Coast, Hutt Valley, Wairarapa, Hawkes Bay and MidCentral CHEs. This means that dividing regions geographically by island is not always appropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
