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: Merge this recent category into the older existing category (NB: the Commons ref uses "Physicians from Ukraine"). Hugo999 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a make work project for bored CfDers who have nothing better to do than vote on moving pages back and forth?
On 5 February 2014 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m . . (24 bytes) (0) . . (Cydebot moved page Category talk:Nigerian women physicians to Category talk:Nigerian women medical doctors: Robot - Moving category Nigerian women physicians to Category:Nigerian women medical doctors per CFD at [[Wikipedia:Cate...)
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 no reason to split off the more from the less successful nationalists, especially since in many cases the fact that there is a current nation state for them to identify with has nothing to do with success of nationalists and is the result of other geopolitical factors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that new Category:Nationalisms, which basically constitutes a "by name" category, not grouping the content by any criterion. Don't know how this fits into the larger category tree – is it a duplicate or a misnomer or can they all coexist? It would have to be a non-dispersing category to ensure it stays undivided, and I'm no big fan of non-dispersing categories. So I think, that new Category:Nationalisms should be renamed Category:Nationalisms by name or something more appropriate. It's definitely further complicating things, but maybe forces us to try harder and dig deeper. Frankly, I have to think about it. Your intentions when creating that catchall category would be quite helpful, if your willing to share them with us, Charles Essie. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete Category:Nationalism by country or region Nationalism is "nation" and ought be thus sorted by country; we have other categories for separatist, irredentist, racialist, or whatever, for people wanting wannabe countries or change the borders of countries. Moreover, there will be a fine line deciding what is nationalism (which is viewed negatively here) or merely expressing one's ethnic identity, pride, or resistance to assimilation (which are viewed favorably here). So making the requested changes lets WP become the arbiter not only of what is nationalism, but to what region(s) a "nationalism" belongs to - all of which is WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree on the equation "nation = country" if that is what you mean. Besides that wouldn't have an impact on this particular discussion: all three top categories include separatist movements as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but has its problems, too, in that only the not yet successful nationalisms are represented by movements, while the already successful nationalisms are usually to some extent state doctrine. It this a welcome effect? I don't know. This and all other questions will have to be discussed in a new CfD proposal as this one seems to be without consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: if closing without consensus, please mention there should be no prejudice against a new, better prepared nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2016 (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 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.
I see what you mean. A category with just two child categories as I proposed wouldn't be very helpful for navigation. I'm withdrawing my objections. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (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.
Rename/Keep Much to my surprise, this is actually a cohesive category around songs to dance with during The Twist dance craze of 1961 and 1962 and movies involving Twist dancers during that same timeframe. I do think @Hyacinth: should have named it Category:Twist (dance) though.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. List of twist songs identifies several dozen songs "associated with" the craze. We normally categorize songs by artist, year etc and I'm not sure we should (also) categorize songs by which craze(s) they were associated with (as well as having a list). DexDor(talk)07:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lots of songs were written to specifically capitalize on the dance craze of the time, an oft-documented fact. Therefore the dance-related category for songs is well-defined (and may be properly referenced) when spoken of novelty and fad dances of around 1960s. - üser:Altenmann >t07:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we started including every article on that list in the category, that would go too far and include some articles not defined by the topic, but the current contents seem very well defined. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 28 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.
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.
