Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 27

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. Wizardman 15:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of China to Category:Foreign relations of Taiwan
• Propose renaming Category:Bilateral relations of the Republic of China to Category:Bilateral relations of Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: The corresponding main article has been moved to Foreign relations of Taiwan from the consensus in Talk:Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan/Archive_1.68.181.3.62 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The scope of the category is not the same as the scope of the article, as it and its subcategories includes pre-1949 topics such as
  Sino-German cooperation until 1941. Should these be carved out to Foreign relations of the Republic of China (1912-1949) or some such? -64.125.143.140 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Split into new names and another section to cover 1912-1949 Republic of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into new names and Category:X relations of the Republic of China (1912-1949) per JPL. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per JPL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename there is other categories named Category:Foreign relations of China and Category:Bilateral relations of China those problem articles can be relocated in these categories.68.181.1.70 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep temporarily This and all sub-categories are hybrid categories that need to be split into a 1912-49 category and a Taiwan category befor this can be implemented, as there is a lot of aminaland material in the category and sub-categories. The consensus is that WP should treat the Nationalist mainland republic as distinct from the present Taiwan. The best course will be to create the requisite sub-cats annd move all content to them. After that the present category can be deleted or upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just noticed that the categories are not tagged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Foreign relations has already been renamed. Rename Bilateral relations. All the articles have been
  Republic of China was moved to Taiwan. The logic of that move might suggest that the 'relations' articles would be expected to move as well, which is the topic of the current discussion.
  The default for categories should be the modern name and there's very little exclusive pre 1949 stuff in them anyway. It's time we stopped heel dragging in this area. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Looking at the Japanese sub-category, some of its contents are specifically about Japan and the island of Taiwain as a possession of Japan, and have no relationship to the republic of China at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Accounting in Portugal to Category:Accounting by country

Nominator's rationale: Uperge. Used to contain one article about one of the professional bodies, but I have moved it to Accounting in Portugal, so the country category is no longer needed. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is anything hurt by keeping the series category with one article? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and the deletion would be without prejudice to re-creation if the article gets re-split to pages on the 2 professional bodies or Category:Portuguese accountants gets created. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It might be needed in future and there are several other "accounting in" categories which have only one entry. Biscuittin (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fits the
  WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established "Foo by country" category tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep as part of an established category tree pattern Hmains (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• OK, withdrawn by nominator. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 1 April 2013 (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: nomination withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tractor aircraft to Category:Propeller aircraft

Nominator's rationale: The

WP:OC to have this category seperate from "propeller aircraft", where it can be assumed to be the case unless otherwise noted (as Tractor configuration notes, "Today, propeller-driven aircraft are assumed to be tractors unless it is stated otherwise."); it is the same as if, were we classifiying cars, we had Category:Front-engined automobiles - it's simply so "normal" that it isn't noteworthy in the least, vs. Category:Mid-engined automobiles and Category:Rear-engined automobiles, which are defined by their engine/configuration (and whose categories need population, but that's another matter). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete Properly populating this category would empty its parent. This is so overwhelmingly the normal case that there's no need to subcat it. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see the problem in emptying the parent category, and making it a container category for subcategories, and concept articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd wager most people, upon seeing the term "tractor aircraft", would think it was some sort of agricultural aircraft terminology. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • you could call it Category:Tractor-configuration aircraft if you wanted to avoid that. (or with airplane tugs (pushbacks); though Pusher aircraft also has that problem ) I don'g see how someone could think an AG could be used as a farm tractor though. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and fully populate with Category:Propeller aircraft becoming a container category. Aircraft are not just Tractor or Pusher but can belong to one of the other subcats instead. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After considering this some more, I'll withdraw this nomination, because Hmains is right - it makes more sense to "complete the set", especially as it appears on pages ("single-engine aircraft"+"tractor aircraft" is more useful than "single-engine aircraft"+"propeller aircraft"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 29 March 2013 (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.