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: administrative close: as noted, Category:Climate change deniers is already nominated and under discussion here. Category:Climate change skeptics, the category purportedly nominated here, is current a category redirect, and contains no articles, so there might be some confusion here. Deletion of Category:Climate change deniers can be advocated for at the ongoing discussion; after it closes, depending on the outcome, a new nomination for deletion could be started. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Climate change skeptics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There's a vigorous discussion at BLPN about the inclusion of some people in the category "Climate Change Deniers", which has subsequently been renamed Category:Climate change skeptics.

I think there's a better solution and that is to delete the category. Our general guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization is a bit light on the theory of categorization, Although it does include the admonition that "Categorization of articles must be verifiable". The general article Categorization provides useful information:

According to the classical view, categories should be clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. This way, any entity of the given classification universe belongs unequivocally to one, and only one, of the proposed categories.

It is inevitable that there will be discussions about whether a proposed category is useful or not, but if there are good faith discussions about whether an article belongs in a category on a regular basis, this ought to be a red flag that the problem is with the category.

This reminds me very much of the discussion I had about the inclusion of "influences" in an infobox. I strongly believe it is in an important aspect of an article to discuss who may have influenced the subject and how the subject may have influenced others, but almost always these discussions should take multiple sentences or perhaps even multiple paragraphs to expound. Whether person A influenced person B is rarely a binary "yes/no" issue, it is usually a nuanced discussion with a range of possibilities. For that reason, I support discussions in the main article about who influenced whom, but feel that it shouldn't be pigeonholed as a single valued entry in an infobox.

For the same reasons, I agree that the discussion of where a notable person or scientist falls on the spectrum of agreement with the mainstream climate science conclusions is tremendously important to any article about a subject in the field, but it is almost never that the subjects position can be summarized to a single word or short phrase.

If we have to debate whether person X belongs in this category, we should drop the debate and delete the category.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, the nomination should also include the subcategories, otherwise the subcategories will become orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query, if we would delete the category, how should we categorize people who are primarily known for their view on climate change? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. The category is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Category:Climate Change deniers and there is no reason to split the conversation further than it already has been. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:15, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support procedural close. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 3 November 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Medical collaboration of the week members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This page has not been used since 2009 and it is not maintained although it has the potential of being quite useful   Bfpage |leave a message  09:46, 3 November 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 result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1933 establishments in Kyrgyzstan to Category:1933 establishments in the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: alternatively merge with Category:1933 establishments in Russia as Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (1926–36) was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Tim! (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I presume that the area of the Kirghiz ASSR and Kirghiz SSR were the same. I would thus prefer to see this given a name so that it could have the same parent as the 1979 category - see other discussion today. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Soviet Union target. There is no good reason based on how the world was in 1933 to over divide that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 18 November 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 result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1979 establishments in Kyrgyzstan to Category:1979 establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic

Nominator's rationale: per Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic for the years 1936–1991and exisiting category tree Category:Establishments in the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic by year Tim! (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- We should use the contemporary, not current name, but since the boundaries are the same they should be in a Kyrgyzstan parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 8 November 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:4th-century Roman Catholicism to Category:4th-century Christianity
• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century Roman Catholicism to Category:5th-century Christianity
• Propose upmerging Category:8th-century Roman Catholicism to Category:8th-century Christianity
• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century Roman Catholicism to Category:9th-century Christianity
• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century Roman Catholicism to Category:10th-century Christianity
• Propose upmerging Category:4th-century Roman Catholic church buildings to Category:4th-century churches
• Propose upmerging Category:5th-century Roman Catholic church buildings to Category:5th-century churches
• Propose upmerging Category:8th-century Roman Catholic church buildings to Category:8th-century churches
• Propose upmerging Category:9th-century Roman Catholic church buildings to Category:9th-century churches
• Propose upmerging Category:10th-century Roman Catholic church buildings to Category:10th-century churches

Nominator's rationale: merge since there wasn't a separate Roman Catholic Church since (officially) 1054. We don't have Eastern Orthodox categories for the above centuries either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per the nominator's rational. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Might category re-directs be useful as well if this goes ahead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Prior to the great schism over the issue of filoque in 1054, we should have a single Christianity category. After that Christianity should be split into RC and Orthodox. In practice, all the content that I could see appeared to refer to the western (RC) church, so that a reverse merge might have been appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 8 November 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.