< March 9	March 11 >

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 to Category:Film websites. postdlf (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Film websites by country to Category:Film websites

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per not yet. Until such time as this can serve as a top-level category for national film websites by country sub-categories, this serves no useful purpose, only confusing editors as to where film websites should be placed. Right now, the rationale seems to be -- most but not all of the time -- that a film website with a country in the name belongs here, which is a clearly a case of WP:OC#TRIVIAL, imo. Hopefully, we will If we do have country categories for film websites soon and we can recreate this. If the category creator or someone wishes to create national categories, I'll happily withdraw this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. A "Foo by country" category should be a container category, but this one contains only articles, but no subcats. I disagree with the nominator's hope that "we will have country categories for film websites soon"; there are nowhere near enough article to justify such a sub-cat scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and one other explanation that may be offered is that this is a badly named category for websites that deal with national cinemas only, but again, if you take a look at the actual category contents, that's rarely the case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see why the category would only be useful if it had subcategories. The entries on it are organized alphabetically, which roughly separates them by country. This is exactly what subcategories would accomplish, only with better precision, e.g. not having Hungarian and Hong Kong websites together. But as BrownHairedGirl said, there aren't enough articles to create subcategories. My personal rule of thumb is to only create a category when there are at least 3 articles that would be on it. Creating categories is not a matter of "wishing" to do so, but a matter of whether there's a need to have them.
  And applying this principle to the category itself (as opposed to its hypothetical subcategories), I have to say that there is indeed a purpose and a use for it, in the specific task that categories have to fulfill, which is helping users on the navigation and discovery of articles. This is in contrast with your suggestion that it makes it harder for editors to categorize the article; Wikipedia is made for its readers, not for it's editors. If someone wants to see articles about Hungarian movie websites, or European movie websites, this category is their best bet. Having those articles solely on Category:Film websites would make this task a lot more tedious (you'd have to open every article to find out which ones are from where).
  Two more remarks: (1) A "Foo by country" category should be a container category -- who says that? Is that written somewhere? If you're using your common sense, I acknowledge that that reasoning does have some merit, but per the reasons I provided above, I think there may be exceptions; (2) the rationale seems to be -- most but not all of the time -- that a film website with a country in the name belongs here -- well, sorry, but that's an ad hoc rationale. The real rationale is clearly (imho) that a film website focusing on movies from a specific country, or written by/for a specific country's audience, belongs here. For these reasons, I'd prefer to keep this, but I'll wait for your comments before taking a stand. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's your rationale for retaining, then I think you've mis-named the category, as "FOO by country" is commonly used as a top-level category for national sub-cats, as pointed out above. I think what you're envisioning is Category:National film websites or some such, with a category description that clearly states that this is a category for film websites that are exclusively or at least largely devoted to National cinemas. There's no indication of that now, and its confusing for both readers and editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I'd say national cinema refers to the "nationality" of the films themselves, not of the websites. Perhaps it was the way I put it, mentioning "focusing on movies from a specific country" before the other two criteria. While it is true that a Greek movie website will probably mention/review Greek films, they'll still be a Greek website if they did (and these websites usually do) review films from other origins. In fact, they would still be a Greek website even if they didn't mention Greek national cinema, or even if the website wasn't written in Greek language. You actually acknowledge this as well when you said "...for websites that deal with national cinemas only, but again, if you take a look at the actual category contents, that's rarely the case". These characteristics are often present on film websites from a given country, but they're the consequence, not the cause of their being "from country X". They don't stop being "from country X" by not having them.
      So, mea culpa: the definition of a film website from a specific country, in my view, would be "maintained by staff that's largely from a given country, and/or written for a specific country's audience". Hope that's unambiguous enough :)
      That said, I guess "National film websites" could still be a good substitute for "Film websites by country", as long as it is not understood solely in the may you put it -- websites focusing on their country's national cinema. If you agree with that, I'd support a rename. --Waldir ^talk 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I think the proposed rename is less open to misinterpretation than the current name, I personally still prefer to upmerge. A Greek website devoted to Greek cinema can be adequately categorized in Category:Film websites, Category:Greek websites and Category:Cinema of Greece, imo. If it's a website about film generally that happens to be based in the Greece, then the first two categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'd be fine, if we already had category intersection natively. Since we don't, it would represent a decrease in usability for the reader, and thus I tend to not like that idea very much... --Waldir ^talk 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#G4 - Recreation. --Xdamr^talk 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:Category:People of Eurasian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: this page is a reincarnation of previously deleted Category:People of mixed Asian-European ethnicity Mayumashu (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of a category deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 21#Category:Eurasian_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 15#Parishes of Ireland. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Parishes of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
to Category:Civil parishes of Ireland

1. Category:Parishes of Northern Ireland to Category:Civil parishes of Northern Ireland
   1. Category:Parishes of County Antrim to Category:Civil parishes of County Antrim
   2. Category:Parishes of County Armagh to Category:Civil parishes of County Armagh
   3. Category:Parishes of County Down to Category:Civil parishes of County Down
   4. Category:Parishes of County Fermanagh to Category:Civil parishes of County Fermanagh
   5. Category:Parishes of County Londonderry to Category:Civil parishes of County Londonderry
   6. Category:Parishes of County Tyrone to Category:Civil parishes of County Tyrone
2. Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Civil parishes of the Republic of Ireland
   • Category:Parishes of the Republic of Ireland by county should be deleted, and Category:Geography of the Republic of Ireland by county transcluded in the supercat instead, and all the county subcats made direct children instead of using a redundant extra layer of categorization; Category:Religion in the Republic of Ireland by county should be removed, and its subcategories likewise removed from the subcategories (e.g. Category:Parishes of County Wexford is a subcat of Category:Religion in County Wexford, but Category:Civil parishes of County Wexford should not be a subcat of it.
   1. Category:Parishes of County Cavan to Category:Civil parishes of County Cavan
   2. Category:Parishes of County Clare to Category:Civil parishes of County Clare
   3. Category:Parishes of County Cork to Category:Civil parishes of County Cork
   4. Category:Parishes of County Donegal to Category:Civil parishes of County Donegal
   5. Category:Parishes of County Dublin to Category:Civil parishes of County Dublin
   6. Category:Parishes of County Galway to Category:Civil parishes of County Galway
   7. Category:Parishes of County Kerry to Category:Civil parishes of County Kerry
   8. Category:Parishes of County Limerick to Category:Civil parishes of County Limerick
   9. Category:Parishes of County Louth to Category:Civil parishes of County Louth
   10. Category:Parishes of County Mayo to Category:Civil parishes of County Mayo
   11. Category:Parishes of County Meath to Category:Civil parishes of County Meath
   12. Category:Parishes of County Monaghan to Category:Civil parishes of County Monaghan
   13. Category:Parishes of County Sligo to Category:Civil parishes of County Sligo
   14. Category:Parishes of County Tipperary to Category:Civil parishes of County Tipperary
   15. Category:Parishes of County Wexford to Category:Civil parishes of County Wexford

Nominator's rationale: rename: The parent article forlornly states it is for civil parishes, not religious ones. Church of Ireland parishes were once the same as civil parishes, but have diverged over 150 years; Roman Catholicism in Ireland has had different parishes since the Penal Laws. Civil parishes are obsolete for most purposes and most people have no idea which one they live in, whereas quite a few are members of a Catholic or Anglican parish. In summary, "parish" does not by default mean "civil parish" in Ireland, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Some of the articles in subcategories do actually relate to current religious parishes rather than historical civil parishes (see e.g. in Category:Parishes of County Dublin); these articles should be removed from the relevant categories when renamed. jnestorius^(talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. How many articles actually exist on civil parishes in either the 26-counties, and how many in the 6? I am leaning to oppose, because I think that this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: I don't recall ever encountering an article on a civil parish in the 26 counties., but since most of these categories are very sparsely populated, I think that the simplest solution for now is to keep all flavours of parish together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only found the category after discussion at Talk:Civil parish#Ireland from User:Hohenloh, who has been populating Category:Civil parishes in Dublin. Keeping everything together strikes me as a bad idea. I agree the categories are little populated, but already the few articles that are there are so disparate that the category is uninformative. The civil parish category can be in an article about a village or locality which shares its name, and each county should ultimately have at a minimum a list-of-civil-parishes article as the 6-counties currently do. A good number of village articles could quickly be added to the categories once renamed. Do you envisage the current articles all having "(Church of Ireland parish)"-style disambiguators? I would question whether most catholic or anglican parishes are encyclopedic at all. A namechange would in addition disscourage a well-meaning parishioner from cluttering an article about a locality with information about Mass times. The religious details should be combined with the article about the parish church until the unlikely event that there is enough to refactor out. I think acting now while the problem affects few articles is better than waiting till the mess is larger. Doing nothing is the easiest solution for editors, but not the simplest for users. jnestorius^(talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The outline suggested is the way it will have to be at some time in the future. It is probably overkill at the moment, but clearing the mess up now is going to be less work than later on. p.s. Category:Parishes of County Meath does NOT need renaming - it is already correct. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about Meath. The solitary article Bohermeen should be merged with Ardbraccan. I don't think there is often a need for an article about a Catholic parish (Category:Church parishes is pretty barren) and the article is either about the civil parish or a more general region in Category:Geography of County Meath jnestorius^(talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. (and I hope I understand this correctly!) I'm approaching this from a historical perspective. "Civil parishes", which in effect were Church of Ireland parishes, was the denomination used for hundreds of years for local administration. This included churches, schools, fire brigades, alms-houses, widows-houses, orphanages, dispensaries, even hospitals and public buildings. They changed from time to time, splitting and uniting (which I've mentioned in every article I've dealt with). It's important to get this clear. Each civil parish had defined boundaries. I created the category Civil parishes in Dublin in order to clarify that the article related to the civil parish - Roman Catholic parishes were a different matter. In creating and re-working the articles on Dublin Church of Ireland/Civil parishes, I've tried to ensure that each article includes the elements that constituted a parish at that time: church, church history, church-yard (ie, cemetery), parish, parish history, parishioners, parish school and charities, plus some local history. I've still got about half a dozen articles to go to finish off Dublin, and BTW I'd appreciate feedback on this. Thanks, Hohenloh ⁺ 10:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. After the further clarifications from Jnestorius and Hohenloh, I am leaning towards supporting the nomination, but I have some reservations: the civil parishes are a historical issue, but the current Roman Catholic parishes are more likely to be familiar to editors, simply because they are current, so I suggest that we need a little more discussion of how to categorise them.
  I also think we need badly more input. I see no sign of a notification to WikiProject Ireland, so I will add that notice now ... and I suggest that this nomination should be relisted to allow further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now notified WikiProject Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If articles on denominational parishes exist, could they be referenced in the "See also" section of the Civil parish article (if most of the parish lies within the civil parish)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking about this again, it sounds like an ideal opportunity to do a logical "grand slam". Much work has been done on the "Baronies of Ireland" category. The next geographical division is the Civil Parish, which this proposal would address. The final part is the townland. Now this is currently sandwiched uncomfortably between the Baronise and County categories. More confusingly, there are categories like "Category:Townlands of County Tipperary". I think that this latter category should be abolished. It should instead flow in a logical geographical and administrative hierachy from greatest to least, that is, county, barony, civil parish and townland. This would involve the merging or re-location of several current categories. Thoughts anyone? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's do this one step at a time, please; the parenting of parishes and townlands can be examined separately from this decision on splitting the civil and religious parsishes. (However, note that baronies and the later rural districts are historical divisions, whereas townlands are still in use. It would make no sense to have to go through a defunct layer to navigate between two current layers). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree about the defunct status of baronies. But this argument has been well played out on the discussion page. Can we at least agree to do no damage that would prevent a later exercise along the lines i suggested above? That is, leave open the possibliity at a later date of having a serious re-organisation of the categoeies (using the hierarchy suggested above) while not impeding the current proposed change? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion page has been discussing baronies? And what proposals do you see here that would impede the re-organisation you suggest? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baronies of Ireland discussion page. Plus individual baronies (e.g. Eliogarty ). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've changed my mind on the matter. Reason # 1 - The parishes of the Catholic Church in Ireland are generally unrelated to civil parishes. As the majority religion, most people would have no common basis of understanding. Even in the Church of Ireland, the wholesale amalgamation of parishes and indeed dioceses have caused that community memory of former times to wanne. Reason # 2 - their original use in local taxation was superceded by District Electoral Divisions by the mid-nineteenth century. Reason # 3 - there is no reliable on-line source that can trace, to the level of detail that would be necessary, the boundary of a civil parish. The knowledge has been lost, let's acknowledge it. And you know what, it was never that important anyway. They were not so much units of local administration as weapons in a larger battle of cultural warfare between the conqueror and the conquered. Let's get over it. Let the re-categorisations continue along county and denominational lines. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all as proposed except Croats and Serbs, which should be renamed as suggested by Sussexonian. I think we do not need to multiply 'Ethnic' categories. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

propose renaming the following (category pages listed under Category:People by ethnicity):

Nominator's rationale: for consistency. of the 183 category pages listed at Category:People by ethnicity, these 24 do not follow the WP naming convention to use 'Fooian people' instead of 'Fooians' for category pages (see pages listed at Category:People by nationality, moreover). Suggest too that subsequently the same change be naming change be made to subcategories listed at Category:People by religion. Mayumashu (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. This is probably speediable, as the proposed naming format is used overwhelmingly. I agree with adding the "Ethnic" adjective to the ones so indicated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, GOF, you d add 'Ethnic' and not 'Ethnically'?, to be clear Mayumashu (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "ethnic". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming Category:Celts to Category:Celtic peoples; it should be Category:Celtic people, because we are talking of individuals, not groups. Neutral on the others for now (haven't checked them all).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, BHG - will revamp the entry for Celtic and Komi people according. Mayumashu (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The heading is wrong; the archetype is 'Foos to Foo people' not 'Fooians to Fooian people'. Looking at Category:People by ethnicity, the vast majority of entries are names of peoples which don't correspond to a country: the only ones I can spot are "Armenian people" and "Uzbek people". For example there is no Ethnic French people, Ethnic Russian people etc. I am wondering why Serbs and Croats get a category here but not Germans or Greeks.

If the aim is consistency, do not add "Ethnic" to two titles out of 183. Category:Serbs is a mess anyway, but confirms that the lead article is Serbs not Serbian people which would be wrong. If it must be renamed, I would suggest Category:Serb people and Category:Croat people as the usual formulation and which avoids the possibly POV "Ethnic". This would also be a sort of parallel to the existing Category:Uzbek people versus the ugly Category:Uzbekistani people. But otherwise keep these two to match the head articles. Sussexonian (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??'Foo' is the noun form placeholder and 'Fooian', the adjective form. Occasionally the they are the same but in most cases they are different. At any rate, I had considered 'Croat people' and 'Serb people' too but think 'ethnic Serbian' and 'ethnic Croatian' is a better choice - I don t see how use of 'ethnic' presents a POV issue. And I would support there being an Category:Ethnic German people etc. should a need be identified - I don t see how there not being these now means we shouldn t or can t have the two proposed in this nomination. Mayumashu (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that there is Category:Ethnic German people - have linked it to Category:People by ethnicity. Mayumashu (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as per fixed nomination. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Croats to Category:Croat people and Category:Serbs to Category:Serb people per Sussexonian. In my experience, in the context of ethnicity and nationality in the Balkans, "Croatian" and "Serbian" more commonly refer to citizenship and characteristics of the state, whereas "Croat" and "Serb" identify ethnicity. See, for example, this:

In my choice of the words "Croat" or "Croatian," "Serb or Serbian," and "Slovene" or "Slovenian," I have adapted a system proposed by the historian Ivo Banac. A person is a Serb, Croat, or Slovene. When used as adjectives, "Serb," "Croat," and "Slovene" refer to ethnicity: Slovene soldier, Croat culture, Serb viewpoint. "Serbian," "Croatian," and "Slovenian" refer to language and to attributes of the state: Serbian history, Slovenian independence, Croatian Parliament.

For example, a "Crotian Serb" means a Serb who lives in Croatia, whereas a "Croat-Serb" means a person of mixed Croat and Serb ancestry. "Croatian territory" means land that belongs to Croatia, regardless of who is living on it. "Croat territory" means land where Croats are living, regardless of which state it belongs to.

This distinction is upheld by various publishers and compilers of data, including Encyclopædia Britannica and the Minorities at Risk (MAR) data project. The Britannica entry Croatia: Ethnic groups and religions, for example, lists "Croats (more than three-quarters of the population)" and "Serbs (less than one-eighth)". The MAR project likewise uses "Croat" ([1][2]) and "Serb" ([3][4][5]), e.g., "Croats in Serbia" and "Serbs in Croatia".

Rename the rest as nominated, but list the following categories at WP:CFD/W/M for manual removal of non-biographical articles: Category:Hashemites, Category:Bosniaks, Category:Celts, Category:Crimean Tatars, Category:Jews, Category:Manchus, Category:Serbs, Category:Sorbs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, with no prejudice against creating Category:Polish people of Lithuanian descent if it can be populated. The decision to include or exclude a particular article from a particular category should be discussed on that article's talk page and, if necessary, via appropriate dispute resolution processes, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for nationalist advocacy of any kind or by any side.

Regarding the suggestion to create Category:Polish-Lithuanian people: though that category would not be directly within the scope of this CfD nomination, absent a consensus to reverse the outcome of CfD, 11 Feb 2010 - Category:Polish Lithuanians it would be subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4 per the outcome of the 11 February 2010 discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poles from Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently empty, but according to a post here this category appears to be some sort of fork arising out of some dissatisfaction with the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 11#Category:Polish_Lithuanians. I'm sure it was created in good faith, but I don't think we need another non-standard ethnicity-related category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no reason to delete this category. A Polish Lithuanian and Pole from Lithuania are two different things. Józef Piłsudski for example, should be in the second category rather than in the first.  Dr. Loosmark  12:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. We had a long discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 11#Category:Polish_Lithuanians, Category:Poles from Lithuania was created by an editor who didn't like the result of that discussion (as shown by his vote at that discussion). Varsovian (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason to delete this category. I didn't like result of that discussion, because this is wrong; if Jozef Pilsudski is Lithuanian of polish descent, I'm chinese..., dear God, what are you doing with history...--marekchelsea (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like the result of that discussion either, in my opinion it should have been left as Polish-Lithuanian. However, I respect the result of it: you must too. WP works on consensus. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to change the consensus: you can't just ignore it. Varsovian (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion does not preclude the creation of a new different category. Do you have any other argument other than that?  Dr. Loosmark  20:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You agree with anti-Polish history, I don't know who you are, but you're co-operating with lithuanian nationalist wikipedians. Because of that people as you, Poland is where it is...--marekchelsea (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you would like to discuss me, please do so on your talk page. If you would like to pass information to me, please leave me a message on my talk page. This here is the discussion regarding the deletion of Category:Poles from Lithuania, please keep your comments here to those strictly related to that topic. By the way, I'd no more want to co-operate with any nationalists, regardless of whether they are Lithuanian or Polish. Varsovian (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poles from Lithuania and "Lithuanians of Polish descent" are two different things, see Polish minority in Lithuania. - Darwinek (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 11#Category:Polish_Lithuanians. Per User:Darwinek I see no reason why this category cannot exist alongside Category:Lithuanian people of Polish descent, though I suggest a rename to Category:Polish people of Lithuanian descent iot conform to the standard naming conventions. --Xdamr^talk 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to that renaming. I presumed that such a category already existed, but I was lazy and did not check :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably the best solution, but it doesn't make Fujimori an Inca. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah it doesn't. However had both of his parent been Inca then in all probability he would have been considered Inca. Especially if he would to become the president of an Inca state.  Dr. Loosmark  21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Both his parents were Japanese, he became president of Peru. Pilsudski's family was from Lithuania, became Polonized and he became dictator of Poland. Straightened things out in Poland too. But I suggest taking this to the Pilsudski talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for smarting off about Fujimori, but you know I don't live in a cave. I've even watched the movie The Fall of Fujimori. Btw your comparison of the two men would only make sense if Fujimori would have been born in Peru, to Japanese parents, and then returned to Japan to become president. So I am afraid the Fujimori - Inca comment is on par with your famous HMS Hood comment from all those months ago.  Dr. Loosmark  22:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) Please calm down, I was never under the impression that you live in a cave. Congratulations that you watched a movie about Fujimori, that's nice to know. Now please read some scholarly books in English concerning Pilsudski, not some tygodnik article about him, and then we can discuss his origins at that talk page. Btw, the H.M.S. Hood remark of yours through me for a loop. Went to the article's history (went back a year), it's talk page (went back three years), no luck. If you care to, please place the "diff" you think is pertinent at my talk page, (not here). I don't know if old age is creeping up on me or what, but on the one hand it's flattering that month old "comments" of mine are remembered by you, but it's scary that I can't remember comments I wrote two days ago. On the other hand my failing memory allows me to forget the plethora of comments you've posted on the project, similar to the one above. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It serves no purpose and too many of the individuals being named in the category cannot simply be "neatly" included on the basis of some editors "feelings" or their "opinions" concerning the individuals. Please refer to the new article Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) which gives an objective perspective on the subject. I think it's a very good article. Furthermore comments like "you're co-operating with lithuanian nationalist wikipedians. Because of that people as you (sic), Poland is where it is..." and "if Jozef Pilsudski is Lithuanian of polish descent, I'm chinese..." pretty well sums up the dilemma being presented. And of course ..."dear God, what are you doing with history..." is just the kind of argument the project needs to reach any consensus. Another editor pipes in "A Polish Lithuanian and Pole from Lithuania are two different things. Józef Piłsudski for example, should be in the second category rather than in the first". Really, and scholars and encyclopedias that disagree with that "opinion" be damned. And Pilsudski calling himself a Lithuanian in the Sejm itself (to irk Dmowski and Co.) is meaningless, I suppose. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah and Kennedy called himself a Berliner. I suppose next you are going to advocate to change his category from "People from Boston" to "People from Berlin", right?  Dr. Loosmark  21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I might if his family originated somewhere from Brandenburg, unlike the other guy from Pilsūdai. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And? Both of his parents were Poles.  Dr. Loosmark  21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and all this time I thought that both of his parents were of Irish descent and the family originated in Ormonde and Desmond. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And so Kennedy lived most of his life in Ireland, became president of Ireland and.. oh wait.  Dr. Loosmark  21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "..."oh wait"..., for what? Removing Kennedy from the many categories placing him in that of Irish-Americans? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. I think my point about the differences between the two men was pretty clear.  Dr. Loosmark  22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but I disagree, your point was very unclear (and we were discussing three men). Let's get back to the subject "Category:Poles from Lithuania" and whether it should be deleted. If you care to discuss the other people, we can do it at their talk pages. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Polish people of Lithuanian descent per User:Xdamr and then speedy as empty. Don't we have something better to do than discuss empty categories? What do we have Template:Db-c1 for? Debresser (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Polish people of Lithuanian descent??? What is this??? People you don't understand Polish history... Pilsudski come from Polish szlachta family and born to ethnic polish parents in Lithuania, he was Pole, his family was polish patriotic, in 16th century his family was Polonized, and Pilsudski and other similar person(born in Lithunia) had a Lithuanian ancestors very long time ago. People wake up, he was Pole from Lithuania --marekchelsea (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "What is this??? People you don't understand Polish history..." Marek, perhaps trying to understand history from a different perspective would be helpful. You could start here [6], then read this [7]]. Why would a Lithuanian who was Polonized lose his ethnicity any more than a Pole who was Germanized or Russified? Or a Pole living in the United States or or anywhere else outside of Poland lose their ethnicity? Even if they couldn't speak Polish or knew nothing about their ancestral homeland. The Pilsudski case is a very interesting one. Take some time to delve into it. I would be more than happy to direct you to other information concerning his relationship to Lithuania, his vision of the re-establishment of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, his relationship with the Narutowicz and Narutavičiai families and of course his foreign policy vis a vis Lithuania. Then you at least might understand why this category is bogus and should be deleted. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fork of previous category which was deleted. Would consider pros and cons further for the Polish people of Lithuanian descent. M.K. (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think that this is perhaps a situation where the category system cannot fully accommodate the complexities of the history of some areas without becoming unduly complicated. Poland's history does not fit neatly into our standard category structures, because the country was partitioned out of existence from the late 18th century until 1918, and the country's border's have shifted twice since then. This leaves us with a tangle of permutations, because we are dealing with various permutations of three variables: nationality, citizenship and ethnicity, which creates the possibility of a bewildering array of intersections.
  Please can editors remember that the category system exists to facilitate navigation between articles, but it cannot ever be a complete and perfect taxonomy of all permutations. The most important thing here is that the nationality, citizenship and ethnicity of people should be described appropriately in the article, where the complexities of the situation can be clearly explained to the reader. Sometimes the combination of attributes which is defining for a particular individual may not be a good basis for a category, in which case the article can still be categorised appropriately in broader categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unfortunately some editors are too nationalistic to respect the way that WP works. What we are doing here is giving them a stick to hit other editors with. Although the standard practice is becoming "Fooish people of Fooian descent", here we're going to hit problems (and be hit by the stick which is in the hands of the nationalists). I propose that we delete this category and rename Category:Lithuanian people of Polish descent to "Polish-Lithuanian People". Varsovian (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Good temporary suggestion. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Inappropriate fork creation, apparently because a user disagreed with the results of a previous CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: RENAME. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology to Category:History of economic thought, methodology, and heterodox approaches.

Nominator's rationale: Most WP economics articles use the categories referenced at JEL classification codes, which is supposed to mirror in substance the official external source at http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php. At classification B of the latter, the current name is what is proposed above. It is identical to the JEL: B name at JEL classification codes and was recently updated from the earlier name "Schools of economic thought and methodology." Only the corresponding JEL: B category title at Category:Schools of economic thought and methodology has not yet been updated. Updating by renaming it to what is proposed would merely bring the category name into line with its counterpart at JEL classification codes and the corresponding external source. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a bit long, but that shouldn't confuse readers, as it's only going to be used to organize categories lower in the hierarchy of the JEL classification system.JQ (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:Past Derbyshire MPs to Category:Derbyshire MPs
• Category:Current Derbyshire MPs to Category:Derbyshire MPs and Category:UK MPs 2005-

Nominator's rationale: Merge both. We don't do current/former splits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifications. I have notified both WikiProject Derbyshire and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom : [8], [9]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both, per nom. Schumi555 16:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe it was tried a few years ago and at that time voted down but it is time now, given what has happened since, to expand the MP abbreviation in category to pages. Anyone opposed? (Might as well poll opinion now and here first, as putting together the nomination will involve a lot of work.) Mayumashu (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, nuclear-strength strongly opposed. :)
    As per many previous discussions, expanding the abbreviation would hugely increase the total length of category names on many articles, because most MPs are in several MP categories. The abbreviation is expanded for the by-country categories (Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Irish constituencies (1801-1922), Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Northern Irish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Welsh constituencies), not for most of the others.
    Take a look at one of the Derbyshire MPs, Margaret Beckett, and calculate the effect on that article of expanding the abbreviation (I think it would add 180 extra characters). Then take a peep at T. P. O'Connor, and do the math. Ouch!
    BTW, the recent rush of abbreviation expansion has generated a lot of upset. I would suggest that any further such nominations should be considered carefully for their actual utility, and that care should be taken to ensure that relevant WikiProjects are notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that clutter is an issue here. If Margaret Beckett is worse-case scenario, then expanding this abbreviation isn't a matter. Getting rid of abbreviations has reduced unnecessary ambiguity, adding navigation (See!), so I don't get what would be upsetting about this (however). If we are to keep some and not others, having criteria for this seems impossible, but if that could be done? However, is there even one abbreviation that everyone with, say, a high school diploma or better's education, no matter where they are from, and with high school or better level English, would know? Spelling out abbreviations is certainly better than the alternative, across the board. Mayumashu (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Margaret Beckett is a long way from being a worst-case scenario; that's why I linked to the worst case, of T. P. O'Connor. (See Winston Churchill too). The first incarnation of the MPs-by-parliament categories used verbose category names which caused howls of anguish and the deletion of the categories, and there's no point in repeating that drama.
        Spelling out abbreviations is definitely not better across the board; it is a good general principle, but it needs to be applied with some common sense, which is why a large minority of the recently-proposed expansions were opposed. In this case, you propose expanding the same abbreviation a dozen times in the category list of an article, and that does not help navigation; it just creates massive, pointless redundancy and visual clutter.
        BTW, if you are talking of expanding all abbreviations, then I underestimated the effect: in the case of Margaret Beckett, you'd also have 8 or 9 categories with "UK" expanded to "United Kingdom". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding UK too, of course. For O'Connor, Churchill, and any other UK politician, it d yeild a list of category page links using no more space than those for Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, two American politicans with a rather long list. (Although Churchill's might take the cake by a crumb or two.) To be clear, I d advocate Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 etc. - this is by no means an overly long name for WP cats. Mayumashu (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom Members of Parliament 2001–2005 is not an overly long name if it is used once once in an article. But since most MPs will have about 4 or 5 such categories (differing only in the digits), and some of the most notable will have 10 or more, it's pointless verbose duplication. Thomas Jefferson's category list is a usability nightmare; it's a wall of text that makes which makes it very difficult to find anything. It would be thoroughly perverse to knowingly replicate that mess, and the notion that someone actually wants to do it seems to me to be exactly the sort of idea which leads to vicious denunciations in some quarters of the whole CFD process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS See CfD 2007 May 9, where it was agreed that the MPs-by-Parliament categories work precisely because the category names are succinct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We should do current/all splits, where current is a subcategory of all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like you support an upmerger of Category:Past Derbyshire MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think so. I think "current" is desirable to have, but not "past but not current". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are countless precedents for deletion "current foos" categories: the list at User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former is about three screenfuls long, and includes a direct precedent for MPs: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Current_British_MPs. That's why there are no other categories for current MPs.
        If you wnat to separate out the current Derbyshire MPs from the others, who not just have a short list, sorted to appear the top of the category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
        • Most of the listed concern dubious categories to start with. Of the rest, I see consensus, with good reason, for not doing "former" categories. This, I am in full agreement. It is frequently asserted also that we don't do "current". This assertion is more of a self-fulfilling thing than a good reason. Some "current"s are not well justified, such as astronauts. Whether current or retired, you'll be interested in their past astronauting adventures. At any one time, few are actively astronauting. Politicians are different. Many are current, and I presume that much of our readership is interested specifically in current politicians. I don't see much argument against this line in GO's list. I didn't read them all, so point out anything relevant I seemed to have missed. No, there is nothing at all special to me about Derbyshire MPs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not quite sure what to make of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22#Category:Current_British_MPs. I don't think it is a clear precedent so much as a mess. Category:UK MPs 2005-, for example, substitutes for "current". I wouldn't have said "delete" for the main entry, but am not much impressed with "current by party" categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Category:UK MPs 2005- is similar to current, but there is an important distinction: it's permanent. No MP will need to be removed from that category when they leave Parliament or die, and one of the problems of "current" categories is that they require constant maintenance. This is the same problem as is covered at WP:MOS#Precise_language, which deprecates the use of the word "current" in articles, because it ages. The reader has no way of knowing what period is referred to by "current". You say that "No, there is nothing at all special to me about Derbyshire MPs", so why do you want them to be the only category of "current" MPs?
            BTW, a Category:Current UK MPs would not have the same contents as Category:UK MPs 2005-, because the "current" version would exclude Tony Blair, Gwyneth Dunwoody, David Taylor.
            BTW, I am not aware of any "current by party" categories of MPs; I just looking quickly in Category:British MPs by political party and could not find any. Are you aware of any that I have missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • RE: Current by party, I was just referring to Category:Current Labour MPs (UK) etc, which were merged/deleted in the CFD you cited. There are a few categories that are temporary, such as the obvious Category:Living people. I don't think it will every be a problem to have politicians removed from current categories when they retire or are defeated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree. Several hundred MPs will leave parliament at the next election (whether by retirement, de-selection or defeat), and there is no guarantee that every obscure backbencher's article will be updated promptly.
                Also, you wrote before that "No, there is nothing at all special to me about Derbyshire MPs", so please don't forget to explain why you want them to be the only category of "current" MPs in any parliament? (This isn't just an issue for the UK: "current MPs" categories have been deleted for other countries) If there's a List of current Derbyshire MPs sorted to the top of the category, that'll do the same job with a lot less maintenance and without breaching the MoS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Surely the Several hundred MPs have their wikipedia bios stating that they are current. On their leaving office, every bio will have to be updated. I watch such things, and rarely am I quick enough to do the edit. It is not much extra to expect the category to be updated by deletion of a link to the current category. This is the sort of thing that draws in new editors. I don't want Derbyshire to be special, I want all notable politicians and leaders to belong to some, single, "current" category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I support the long-standing consensus not to have politicians divided into "current" and "former" categories for each category sub-division of the politicians. Current MPs (as of right now) are permanently placed in Category:UK MPs 2005-, and one category for current MPs is enough. Otherwise we'll be dividing every subdivision of MPs into "current" and "former", and this will not be particularly useful to navigation. Categories are best when they are "timeless" and don't require any updating, regardless of how fast some users think the updating can or would be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nice that that in this case there is a category equivalent to current, but it doesn't seem to be generally the case. I think wanting to find current office-holding politicians is a reasonable thing, and that wikipedia should cater for it. As an experiment, I tried searching for current NZ politicians. It took a frustratingly long time for me to discover the list of current national politicians is to be found in 49th New Zealand Parliament. Category:New Zealand Parliament was particular frustrating, being swamped by mostly long-since dead people. Is it you considered opinion that categories are not well suited to aiding navigation to current office holders? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Lists of current office-holders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought I had explained why I opposed the creation of "current" categories. It's my opinion that (1) previous consensus on this matter should be respected and implemented here; (2) categories should generally be "timeless", so that articles that are currently placed in it will not need to be removed in the future; (3) allowing for "current" categories for politicians would lead to a proliferation of dividing the already existing categories for politicians, which would be unhelpful—Category:Current New York libertarian politicians, Category:Current LGBT British politicians, Category:Current members of the Mexican Communist Party, ad infinitum; and (4) there already is a category where members of the current UK Parliament to be placed, and the articles will conveniently remain in that category forever, eliminating any need for future updating. I don't know anything about the Category:New Zealand Parliament tree, and I don't think we should get sidetracked into that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion needed somewhere. I wholly agree with Smokey Joe that it is horribly unhelpful to users for Wikipedia to ban 'current' lists. There is the same problem with UK constituencies, where historic and current ones appear together with no way (in a category unlike a list) to tell which are the 'current' entries. There are plenty of users looking after UK Parliament articles, so maintenance won't be a problem (unlike titles like Current primetime schedule on FooTV that get created). So let us have a centralized discussion somewhere aimed at accepting a 'current' category structure in cases like this. Sussexonian (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are confusing lists with categories (lists of "current" things do exist), and you also don't seem to have looked at Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies before commenting. As to Derbyshire, what's wrong with my suggestion above of simply having a List of Derbyshire MPs 2005- at the top of the category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- There is long precedent that we do not split inot "current" and "past". We have MPs categories by Parliament, but I doubt that we need to split these by party, though a 650-member category is not displayed well. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the nom's correct rationale: except in a handful of rare cases, we don't do current/former splits, and no reason has been offered (to be fair, no one has argued) that these two categories for Derbyshire should be exceptions. More generally, I agree that impermanent "Current X" categories are not appropriate for the task of conveying a current/former distinction. Such a distinction can be conveyed by more defined categories (e.g., Category:UK MPs 2005-), by lists, and finally by articles themselves; category groupings, however, should have a greater measure of stability than could be had by "current X" categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I object to the blanket "We don't do current/former splits" as a rule, as there should be exceptions for highly notable "current" categories (current world leaders, UN current security council members, members of a national legislature, disagree that a functional list means a category is inappropriate) , but this is not obviously one of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Nothing wrong with putting List of Derbyshire MPs 2005- at the top of the category, much as we might put a template of the current squad in say the Manchester United players category. Occuli (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Current" and "Past/former" are far too subjective and open to misinterpretation if pages are not updated quickly enough. If you can make an argument and gain consensus that an exception to the principle is valid then great, but I see no such argument here. Road Wizard (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. A list of current Derbyshire MPs is a job for an article, rather than a category, and indeed the list is in the infobox of the Derbyshire article (and similar lists appear in the infobox for each county). Warofdreams talk 18:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic, Social and Cultural Council to Category:ECOSOCC

Nominator's rationale: WP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is at Economic, Social, and Cultural Council, so I'd actually propose adding an extra comma to the category name, rather than going for an acronym on the parent category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not rename. I'm not sure why the previous discussion was against expansion of the abbreviation in this case; I'm reasonably fluent with the African Union and other international organisations, but the meaning of this abbreviation is not well known, I don't think. The official website omits the second comma. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename but add the comma per the article (or, better, remove the comma from the article per the website). (In the previous discussion BHG claims that ECOSOC is not ambiguous: but then it is not ECOSOC but ECOSOCC, so it does seem to be ambiguous, and is certainly confusing. Moreover ghits for ECOSOCC are 28,000, as opposed to 64,000 for "Economic, Social and Cultural Council".) Occuli (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the article to remove the second comma. Since it's the name used on the official website, I figured there couldn't really be a sensible controversy over that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per guideline of naming of categories, which says to avoid abbreviations. And per main article as well. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There is consensus against retaining the current, ambiguous naming convention, but not clear consensus for one particular alternative.

Three proposals were considered: Category:Musical conductors, Category:Music conductors and Category:Conductors of music. The first, Category:Musical conductors, was identified as ambiguous due to the potential of confusing "musical" with musical theatre or musical film, examples of which are commonly referred to as "musicals". The second, Category:Music conductors, avoided that ambiguity, but was identified as ambiguous in the national subcategories: Fooian music conductors could be interpreted as Conductors of Fooian music. The third, Category:Conductors of music, was suggested quite late in the discussion (on the ninth day) and therefore did not receive much discussion; what discussion there was concerned mainly the category for conductors from Northern Ireland.

I considered relisting the discussion, but in the end decided against it because the discussion has by now been open for more than three weeks (the maximum suggested duration for a XfD nomination), with the last proposal made two weeks ago and the last comment 10 days ago. If anyone would like to write a new nomination, I would be happy to help (using AWB) with the category tagging; else, because there was unanimous support to moving away from the current names, I will initiate a new (procedural) nomination in about a week. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Conductors to Category:Musical conductors

Reason: Conductor is a disambiguation page, with 15 meanings. This category tree refers to the article which is called conducting; while "conducting" wouldn't work for these categories, the redirect Musical conductor would. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom for clarity. I've wondered about these before; kudos to the nominator for doing the work of nominating all of these. This would be much better! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Per the discussion below, I also agree that music conductor would be a preferable way of phrasing these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Well nominated. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, so that baton-wavers are not confused with coper wires. Note that some of these categories use ((Fooian fooers)), which populates the categories and which AFAIK Cydebot doesn't touch, so some manual (or AWB) work will be required to complete the renaming.
  After completion, re-create Category:Conductors as a disambiguation category using Category:category ambiguous to point to both Category:Electrical conductors and the new Category:Musical conductors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A thought Would it be a good idea to ask at WP:BOTREQ for a bot to try to build a list of categories which have the same name as a disambiguation page? If an obvious (in hindsight) example like this could slip through for so long, there must be more such cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename my first thought of "Category:Conductor" was why is a basic electrical device in music? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as is, but support renaming to Category:Music conductors. The proposed title is confusing; it suggests either "conductors of musicals" or "conductors who are musical". Music conductor also redirects to Conducting. Tassedethe (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, as nominator, think that "Music conductor" wold also work. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (changing my !vote) Rename all to Category:Music conductors and Category:Fooian music conductors, per Tassedethe, to avoid any impression that this relates only to musical theatre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate proposal - Whoa. Hold on a minute, folks! I agree that renaming is needed to eliminate ambiguity. But neither of the suggestions that have been discussed will do the job. A better formulation would be "Conductors of music". To begin with, Category:Music conductors just doesn't sound right to my ears -- and when I googled the terms "Music conductors" and "Conductors of music", I found that the latter gets 10X the number of g-hits.

What's worse is that when it comes to the national sub-cats -- none of which have been tagged, btw -- both of the other formulations are unacceptably ambiguous. Just consider one example (chosen at random, as all suffer from the same defect): Category:Austrian music/al conductors?? I'm quite sure that refers to "Conductors of Austrian music/als"! :)

In short, the only clear and unambiguous formulation is the alternate proposal I've suggested.

Therefore: Rename Category:Conductors to Category:Conductors of music, and all of the sub-cats accordingly (i.e. Category:Austrian conductors of music). Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: This probably needs to be relisted, since my alternate proposal comes so late in the process. Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One must also consider that Category:Conductors of music from Northern Ireland is also ambiguous (and that format was determined in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Northern Irish xxx to xxx of Northern Ireland). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Conductors of music, from Northern Ireland adding a comma? Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more logical solution would be to just use Category:Northern Ireland conductors of music. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the solution, please don't make it involve a new format for Northern Ireland. We have just agreed a consistent format of "Fooers from Northern Ireland", and it seems a pity to break the convention so soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since the sub-categories have not been tagged, I support a relisting (as well as a mild WP:TROUTing for the nominator for neither tagging the categories nor warning that the tagging had not been done). --00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that (assuming the "FOOian conductors of music" were adopted)—using the "from Northern Ireland" convention would undoubtedly result in ambiguity in this specific case, since it would be Conductors of music from Northern Ireland. In such a case it wouldn't be clear if the conductor or the music was from NI. You could make it Music conductors from Northern Ireland, but then the just-hypothetically-established convention would be being "broken". Somewhere, something's gotta be busted. It's just a question of which one is broken. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comma method has no ambiguity, and it does not break any recently achieved consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comma does something worse—it makes the phrase ungrammatical. It would be improper grammatically to place a comma at that point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: MERGE to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Chinese Americans from Hong Kong to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I think these are essentially duplicate categories. I propose upmerging the contents to its parent. "Chinese Americans from Hong Kong" is the same thing as a "Americans of Chinese descent from Hong Kong", which is therefore the same thing as Category:American people of Hong Kong descent, since the latter is a subcategory of Category:American people of Chinese descent. Confusing, yes—that's one reason we don't need two categories to say the same thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and also upmerge to Category:American people of Chinese descent as not all people of Hong Kong are necessarily ethnically Chinese Mayumashu (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They'd better all be ethnically Chinese if they are in Category:Chinese Americans from Hong Kong. If the Hong Kong category is a subcategory of the Chinese one, there is no need to double up on the merging, since anyone in the Hong Kong category is also in a subcategory of the Chinese one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent per nominator. Do not do the redundant upmerge suggested by Mayumashu. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it is true the ethnically non-Chinese from Hong Kong are still 'Chinese' in terms of a national origin/descent - now support the single upmerge, as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom. I suspect that the few non-Chinese Hong Kong people will be classified accordingly to a more distant descent (e.g. Indian), and will be a small group anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Laura Bell Bundy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A bit premature. Bundy just released her debut single a month ago. Don't re-create until she has multiple songwriting credits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this seems to be 1/3 of a credit as there are 2 other co-writers. Perhaps she needs at least 1/2 a credit (rounded up) to qualify. 10:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Occuli (talk)
• Delete per nom as (at best) premature. Since we only actually have one "Song co-written by Laura Bell Bundy", a brief mention in the relevant article will do fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge into Category:Tennis players from Northern Ireland, but retain as category redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Irish tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as it already exists at the correct location. I don't know why I bother with this. The category already exists at Category:Tennis players from Northern Ireland, but this was created for no reason. It has been established in multiple CFD discussions that for Northern Ireland we use "x from Northern Ireland" not "Northern Irish x". I tried redirecting the category to the correct one using the correct template, was reverted without discussion, so let's just take the toy away and delete this shall we? O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Properly named category exists already. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but recreate as a ((category redirect)). There's a clear consensus that No. Irl people categories should use "x from Northern Ireland" not "Northern Irish x", but since "Northern Irish x" is the convention for people-by-occupation categories, a redirect helps readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried that, but was reverted. Since the correct category was blanked before this category was created, the other editor knew of the existence of it. O Fenian (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to category redirect. Agree that that should be done in situations like this. It might have been tried, but the next step then is to let the CFD run its course so that if it is done again it has the endorsement of a consensus decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category redirect per previous cfds + above remarks. Occuli (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a second. All subcategories of Category:Tennis players by nationality are name "Fooian tennis players", so Category:Tennis players from Northern Ireland has to be speedily renamed. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will not happen. All Northern Ireland people categories, or all that have been changed so far, are "foo from Northern Ireland". People from Northern Ireland have the right to self-identify as British or Irish, "Northern Irish" has no such status and is a minority term. "Northern Irish" is point-of-view, "from Northern Ireland" is indisputable. O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Debresser may have been commenting tongue-in-cheek. But anyway, Northern Ireland is an exception to the convention. For the avoidance of any future confusion, WP:NCCAT#Occupation should be updated to reflect this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cat already exists with a more neutral title. Mo ainm~Talk 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: NOT RENAMED. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in the Bronx to Category:Buildings and structures in The Bronx

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently subcategories of Category:The Bronx use both 'the Bronx; and 'The Bronx'. This nomination is a test nomination to see if there is consensus to change these all to 'The Bronx', which I think is the correct form. If this proposal get consensus, there will be a need for follow on nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Since it's "The Bronx," it's acceptable to capitalize "The" here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to use proper capitalization. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename, use "the Bronx". The only reason it's "The Bronx" is because "The" is the first word in Category:The Bronx and The Bronx. If it's in the middle of a sentence or phrase, it's just "the Bronx", just like it's "the Netherlands". As but one example of common usage, the NY TImes never uses "The Bronx". In terms of official usage, the official NYC government website also uses "the Bronx" except when it begins a sentence, in which case it is, of course, "The Bronx". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it is rarely called simply Bronx, the common usage is 'The Bronx'. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was simply called Bronx, the categ would be called Category:Buildings and structures in Bronx. Note that we have Category:Buildings and structures in the Philippines, not Category:Buildings and structures in The Philippines.
      Take a look at this search of the Noo Yoik Times: the usage is always "in the Bronx", never "in The Bronx". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. It's never really called just "Netherlands", it's "the Netherlands", but that usage doesn't mean we always capitalize the "The". The exceptions to this are "The Gambia" and "The Hague", but I don't think the Bronx situation has the same particular quirks as those two names. (And sometimes it is just "Bronx", as in Bronx Borough President.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Good Olfcatory and good grammar. The Bronx is the Bronx, but not The Bronx. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Good Olfcatory & BHG. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Frivolous off-topic comment: we should embed a soundtrack to this discussion. Obviously, only one particular band will do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking about one of the gargoyles myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Good Ol’factory. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2010 (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.