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: Each has only 2 pages - the university itself and its school of medicine, I see no need for this category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one that I looked at was an orphan category. However, before deletion work needs to be done to ensure that everything is appropriately linked and that the deletion does not lead to more orphans. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME to Category:Tree frog stubs. Please also see the related debate linked below. This is a tricky pair of debates. Reading the other one, I see that we would be making a scientific error in re-categorising some things as hylidae when they are not. There are also two suggestions in the other debate (and one here) that perhaps a dual tree is needed here. I have concluded that the other debate cannot be concluded as having consensus for the proposed rename. However, some degree of consistency is needed. Following largely on the scientific principle, I will move this related stub cat to the same name. However, in both cases I will also allow that this might need re-visiting if some dual-tree structure is created, and/or the articles are split and pruned better.-Splash - tk 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of like "Tree frogs" as less jargony and more user friendly. I do see that there is a discrepancy in coverage, and at first blush it might seem that both should not exist as categories, but maybe they should, one for taxonomy and one for "tree" status, since some "tree" frogs are not hylidae and some halidae are terrestrial or semi-aquatic. --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Hylidae" is the correct term for this sort of animals. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:South African law of sale and lease[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Mostly empty category which can and should be combined with its parent. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 10:02, 15 January 2014 (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 This is a case where less specificity in the children is acceptable, especially since the notion of "soup" and "stew" is a Western one, and doesn't always translate to other cuisines. For example, some thai curries would be considered stews by definition, but in Thailand they are a different class entirely. There are also several different types of soups, some of which have stew-like qualities and some which do not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are they parented to Category:Soups or Category:Stews? This is the problem with the combined lower level category since it does not belong in either or both. If they are neither, as may be be the case in your Thailand example, then we deal with that on a case by case basis and get them into the correct tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would put them in both. It's not that Thailand doesn't have soups, it's that in Thai cooking (and other cuisines), they don't have this clear binary divide between soup and stew that we seem to have in western cooking. Since it's a different system it's just as easy to parent them in both.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if it is a different system, then they should be categorized by what they are in that system. If that local cuisine means that they belong in both then that is a solution. But calling them both when they are in fact not is a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I don't think it's a problem to parent to both - Daal isn't always a soup, nor is it a stew (depending on thickness, it could map to either), but calling it both is the best approximation we have unless we come up with a whole other system.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The differnece is ultimately how liquid it is and whether it needs to be eaten with a fork or a spoon. To my mind it is wholly acceptable for a national soups and stews category to be parented both to a soups category and a stews one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:REDIRECT to Category:Cheeses from Northern Ireland. However, no protection should result from this, because we should definitely not get into a sort of legislative mind-set in deletion processes. Consensus can change, and so it may be necessary to reconsider this in future. A soft redirect away to the new title should help a lot (maybe!) so I'll add one of those. -Splash - tk 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From my past experience watching CfD, I'm pretty sure that "Northern Irish foo" is on the "don't use this terminology" list. The BushrangerOne ping only 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. This category's name has flipped back and forth between those two titles so many times in the last few years that when I tried to count them my head went into a spin. The ears flew off from the centrifugal force, and the skull has now been sold as a gyroscope to a fairground in the Arctic. The convention of these things is that we use "Foo in/of/from Northern Ireland" to avoid the ongoing dispute about whether there is such a thing as "Northern Irish"ness, and what the term means. If most cases we also have {{category redirect}} from "Northern Irish Foo", to facilitate readers and editors who may be unfamiliar with the terminological politics. That's what I would prefer here, but the last time we got to that point, some bright spark converted the redirect at "Category:Northern Irish cheeses" to a full category, leading us off to another round of renaming/merger/deletion debates. At this point, the most important thing to do is to protect the category and any redirects to it, to put an end to the merrygoround. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not !voting, just heating up my popcorn and settling in to watch :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and then protect everything. We did indeed establish that "Northern Irish" is on the "don't use this terminology" list. Oculi (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Makes sense. ---- HighKing++ 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The problem is that there is no satisfactory adjective referring to the six counties of Northern Ireland, as distinct from (say) the nine historic counties of Ulster. Since both will need an initial capital N as a category name, it will not be apparent whether a cheese made in Donegal does or does not qualify for inclusion. This could be covered in a headnote, but the target is clearer still. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry about Donegal. "Northern Ireland" refers only to the 6 counties, and not the 3 Ulster counties which are in the Republic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Give the discussion going on at Talk:Fivemiletown Creamery (which has been removed from this category), and the fact that only two other articles remain at this category, Blue Rathgore which is no longer made and Coleraine cheddar which according to the discussion should also (will) be removed from the category), perhaps this category should be deleted? Does it make sense to only have one article in a category? The likelyhood of more articles being added is remote, seeing as most articles on Irish cheese are based the cheesemaker (there aren't "local designations" of cheese in Ireland, unlike most other countries). Would it make sense to create a different category for these articles? -- HighKing++ 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this category falls under both the Category:Cheeses by country and Category:British cheeses category trees, it is part of established category trees and, as such, under the WP:SMALLCAT exemption; even a single-article category, when it is part of a (for instance in this case) "by country" tree, is appropriate. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I might have been responsible for many of the Irish cheese articles ending up being based on the cheesemaker and not on the actual cheese. There's no local designations for cheese in Ireland unlike other countries, and many cheesemakers make multiple variations/brands. Many of the cheeses are notable and have won awards. The few books on Irish cheese are also organized by manufacturer and this appears to be the way "cheese" is organized in Ireland. In order to fit in with the existing categories, one suggestion was to set up a redirect from a cheese to the cheesemaker article, and including the category on the redirect page. I've no problem doing that - is that the best way to proceed? For example, including the "Cheese from Northern Ireland" category on the Boilie cheese redirect article. Also, is it worthwhile setting up a similar "Cheesemaker by country" category hierarchy? -- HighKing++ 13:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - yes categorizing redirects when articles don't yet exist is perfectly reasonable in my mind. I don't think we need a cheesemaker's national hierarchy - we have Category:Cheesemakers which is pretty small for now and doesn't need to be split by country - though who knows, we should start by trying to populate it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2014 (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.
