- 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: less useful it is! I mean no consensus. Kbdank71 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:UK MPs 1832-1835 to Category:United Kingdom MPs 1832-1835
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. No objection to expanding MP, but I suspect there could be some opposition to that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – this has been discussed before. Many MPs such as Emanuel Shinwell are in many of these and expanding the abbreviations leads to reams of text. (There was a suggestion that these categories are to some extent administrative and will eventually be replaced with lists.) Occuli (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to a Listify decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason for picking 1832, or is this a test case? I must say that I find the present set-up a particularly impressive model of succinctness and clarity; the subcats listed at Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament display with great elegance. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the first one that came up in my search. When I saw additional ones, I decided to wait and see what happened here. If this one succeeds, I guess a larger rename or listify nomination will be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I see no good reason not to do this. If the clutter that would be created in some articles is the concern, then this can only hasten the day when someone will get around to listifying these, which is really the ideal solution. (I would say listify but there's not much point unless all of them are nominated together, I suppose.) By the way, the previous discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Lengthening the category name will make the category lists much longer. And listification is unsatisfactory when many articles are still to be created and the disambiguation tags determined (and we certainly shouldn't be making category titles cumbersome as a backdoor route to deleting them). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per Timrollpickering. Listification of UK MPs is a massive task, and is only complete from the 1950s onwards, leaving 150 years of MPs to be listified (an average of 650 MPs in each of 30 parliaments, many with deeply ambiguous names because seats tended to be held by members of the same family). In the meantime, the categories serve a dual function: for readers, as a means of navigation pending the completion of lists; and for editors, as a tool to assist the completion of the lists. As others have noted, expanding the abbreviations will lead to reams of text ... and in any case, this is only a partial expansion. If the nominator really wants to expand the abbreviations, the category name would be something along the lines of "United Kingdom Members of Parliament 1832-1835", which creates even more clutter. These categories may be unusual, but they work very effectively, and per the policy WP:IAR we shouldn't use a rule to reduce the useability of wikipedia.
Finally, renaming one category in a series is disruptive, and would impede the useability of the categories: if there is a desire to rename them (which I oppose), then they should either all be renamed or none of them. At present all these categories use the format UK MPs year1-year2, and that consistency helps both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS For the lists, see Category:MPs elected in UK elections. Note that the lists are not simply a bare listing of MPs, but list them by constituency, which is why compiling the lists is such a lengthy process. One of the difficulties is that until the early 20th century, many county seats in parliament were held by baronets or nobility, who not only recycled first names but whose baronetcies often had several creations, being re-established when the line became extinct. I have encountered numerous examples where not only were there several baronets named John X representing a particular constituency, but several people named Sir John X, nth Baronet, because several similar baronetcies were created. The potential for confusion in creating lists is massive, and the categories are an invaluable tool in checking that one is referring to right John X out of a dozen or members of the same extended family. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the present series (with briefer names) is better, as more succint and including those elected at subsequent byelections. Lists by Parliament will be useful, but as you say hard work. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose change. A long-serving MP may have half a dozen or more such categories, as there is one per Parliament. We have lists of MPs by constituency. I do not think a full list would be useful. Traditionally, they were categoriesed as "Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies", which is a horrible mouthful that probably started as English MPs, but I am not sure that the present national categories are any more useful than the county ones that we recently deleted. This series is much more useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, one of the worst examples of overcategorisation. Winston Churchill is in 14 of these categories, it is a complete mess. Tim! (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Churchill is an extreme example, because of his exceptionally long service in parliament. A more representative example of a senior politician is Tony Blair, who is in 6 of these categories. The brevity of these category names ensure that they do not generate excessive category clutter. (The clutter on Tony Blair is caused categories for prizes he has won, which are hardly defining characteristics). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as a special case, to save space. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested compromise. If this discussion closes as listify, tag all of the categories using ((Listify)). This will add them to the list of categories that need to be listified and this can happen over time. But the categories would be flagged so that users would be aware that the categories should not be nominated for renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The categories are slowly being listified anyway, but it's a huge job, so I'm not sure what the tag would add. Surely the CFD notice on the talk page with a link to this discussion will be sufficient notice that renaming has already been discussed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag on the actual category page makes it clear that the category is being listified. So there will be no nominations for renames and it may even generate additional editors to help with the task. I see no reason not to do this. Yes, we are bending the rules a bit since every category is not nominated, but I think WP:BOLD would apply after this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on!!!. the ((listify)) template says "After (CFD link), it was decided that this category should be replaced by a list." So what you are proposing now is a very long way from your initial proposal to rename one category; this latest suggestions amounts to a postponed deletion of a set of over fifty categories. I see nothing resembling a consensus in this discussion for such a move, and if that is what you want it really does need very thorough discussion, because this is a huge set of categories, and giving a general license to delete them could have highly disruptive consequences for the ongoing work of building lists by parliament and lists of constituency MPs. There is a real danger that someone could see the listify tag on of these categories, make a bare list of all the articles currently in the category, and then delete it. Then we are left with a near useless creation, a partial list of MPs in a given parliament, without any indication of what seats they held or party they belonged to. That may not be your intention, but if the listify tags are applied then it would be a perfectly appropriate action.
Once deleted, categories cannot easily be recreated (because articles get moved), and getting these categories to the current point of being a genuinely useful aid in building constituency articles and lists by parliament has taken two-and-half-years of work by numerous editors who have ploughed through mountains of highly ambiguous names. If you want to delete all these categories, then tag them all and make a clear proposal to do so ... but a renaming tag on one out of 55 categories is thoroughly inadequate notice for a move to deletion. Applying a ((listify)) tag to each of them now would not be WP:BOLD, it would be reckless, and I'd strongly oppose it. WP:B OLD notes that "there are some significant changes that can be long-lasting and that are harder to fix if the need arises", and applying a ((listify)) tag to all these categories would be just such a hard-to-fix step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've ever liked the idea of grouping MPs by Parliament and I support listifying all such categories. These categories are poorly-named—consisting entirely of numbers and abbreviations that cannot be expanded without causing excessive clutter—often overlapping, and individually not very defining, especially for those people who have been members of several Parliaments. However, with this many categories and category members, a slow, deliberate approach is needed. So, while I completely support listifying and deleting all categories of this type, I think that the process should be coordinated within and among committed WikiProjects (perhaps even a temporary one created solely for this task) rather than implemented at WP:CFD/W/M.
As far as the proposal to rename, I oppose it for reasons already stated by others; if there is consensus to rename, my preference is for Category:Members of the 11th Parliament of the United Kingdom rather than any title containing years. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtually nobody uses that numbering and terminology - things in British political history are always identified by the dates involved not the "number since arbitrary date". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't know that. That particular suggestion of mine was ultimately a superficial stylistic preference, and I have withdrawn it in light of your comment as common use should (almost) always have primacy over appearance. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With a member of a single parliament, the length of the category would surely be unimportant, but since many politicians are/were members of several parliaments it is an issue. We need therefore a short, however also understandable form and this is guaranteed with the existing variant.
I disagree with some of the points made above by Black Falcon, but I do strongly support his concern that "with this many categories and category members, a slow, deliberate approach is needed" rather a short CFD discussion. Creating a list of MPs for each parliament involves 55 lists of between 600 and 700 people each: that's about 40,000 list entries. These lists are complex, particularly in the 19th century: MPs' names often involve complex ambiguities (due to extended families which recycle first names through generations) and to frequent name changes as titles were accumulated. It was not uncommon in the 19th century for an MP to progress from an unvarnished name ("John Smith") to a courtesy title ("the Viscount X") to an Irish peerage ("The Earl of Y") all whilst serving in the Commons, but for the article to be named under a subsequent UK title ("Baron Z"); so it is very easy for list entries to point to the wrong person. Even constituency names can ambiguous: there have been several completely distinct constituencies with the same name (see e.g. Richmond, Newport, Yarmouth, and Louth).
I am also concerned that some of those advocating radical changes to this huge category system do not seem to have read the previous discussions on the subject, most of which have already been linked from this here. This category system arose out of discussions in 2006 at Category talk:British MPs, when that huge category began to be subdivided: I created a series of categories of the form Category:MPs of the 28th UK Parliament (1906-1910) and began populating them. Those categories were promptly deleted at CfD in August 2006 amidst widespread concerns about the clutter caused by their unwieldy names; the closing admin noted here that the closure as delete was explicitly to allow their recreation with shorter names. The result was the current names, deliberately chosen to be as succinct as possible, and those names have persisted for 2½ years. So I find it a bit ironic that we now have demands for longer names; did those suggesting that actually read the earlier debates??? The two abbreviations used in the category names ("UK" and "MP") don't really merit the Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! comment above: the abbreviation "MP" is clearly explained again in the opening words of every category and should be explained in the lead section of nearly every article on an MP (Sir Samuel Snodgrass was Member of Parliament (MP) for Snoutsinthetrough South-Central ...). Our guidance against using abbreviations in category names exists for good reason, but it is a guideline not an iron rule and per WP:GUIDELINE, "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur". In this case, the abbreviations work, because in the context in which readers encounter them they are clearly explained.
Over the last 2½ years, these categories continue to be populated, and to serve both as a navigational tool and as a cross-check both on articles and on their associated lists: see for example Category talk:UK MPs 1959-1964 as one illustration of how the category totals are used as a checking mechanism. In that 2½ years I am aware of only two CFDs: one in January 2007 proposing the use of ndashes in the names and another in May 2007 proposing deletion. Both were closed as keep.
Consensus can change, but these categories have been fairly durable. That does not, of course, necessarily mean that they are the right solution for the future, but any changes deserve more detailed consideration than has been applied here, taking into account the balance between the maintenance problems of lists (as against category entries, which survive article moves), the various uses of these categories and the wider questions of categorising MPs (currently by country, by party and by parliament).
I think that there is also a pressing case for a much wider look at how the category system as a whole works for the most notable people such as Winston Churchill and Tony Blair. Blair, for example, is in:
- 3 categories relating to his religion (a, b, c);
- 3 relating to his education (d, e, f), plus a further two relating to his brief and undistinguished career as a junior barrister (g, h);
- 4 relating to awards he has won (i, j, k and l);
- 3 relating to things he has done after being prime minister (m, n, o)
- plus two relating to his constituency (p, q).
When we get that far through the alphabet before reaching even the constituency categories it seems to me that we should think carefully about trimming categories related to the central part of a notable person's career without first considering the wider problem of the more tangential categories which attach to such people. Is it really a defining characteristic of Blair that he is in Category:Yale University faculty?
It seems to me that there are basically 4 options elating to these categories: a) keep as is, in parallel with lists; b) delete once lists have been created; c) rename them to longer names (but note previous controversy); and d) keep the categories for maintenance purposes, but make them ((hidden)) (editors involved in their maintenance can see them by going to Special:Preferences and checking a box on the "misc" tab). I'd welcome suggestions on how and where to start that wider discussion, since the previous venue of Category talk:British MPs seems to have been unused since 2006, because that category is now several layers higher up the category tree. There is no directly-appropriate wikiproject, the closest apparently being the inactive British Government, the quiet UK Parliament constituencies, though Peerage is also somewhat relevant.
I hope that these categories will not be deleted until there is a clear consensus for a better solution. Attaching 55 timebombs in the form of ((listify)) tags seems to be to be a very poor substitute for a proper re-examination of how to organise all these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with BHG. Cat clutter is a big problem in bios; what parliaments a parliamentarian has sat in is core defining to me; crap categories about religion, race, and short-term things he/she did before garnering notability and the various prizes typically awarded to people who already have notability clutter the whole scheme. Since the community is unwilling to divest itself of every race, ethnicity, religion, former job, miscellaneous award, etc. cat's we're left to either delete the core defining categories or be left with so many categories on the very notable to make categories less useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 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.