Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Chemical weapons attacks. I'm putting the articles in Category:Terrorist incidents involving chemical weapons into this new category, but that category was not tagged, so I'll nominate it separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq to Category:Terrorist incidents involving chemical weapons
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough material to justify a separate category. Both articles are already categorized in the appropriate Terrorist incidents in Iraq in {Year} category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. My suspicion is an overzealous attempt to subcategorize everythingin Category:Terrorist incidents in Iraq by type.- choster (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) REname and merge both' to something like Category:Chemical weapons attacks. The Iraqi attacks were acts of state not of terrorists, but the usage of chemical weapons since World War I has been sufficiently rare that one category will suffice for both state and terrorist usage. WWI applications and (possibly) the use of Agent Orange by USA in Vietnam might make appropriate subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and merge both' to Category:Chemical weapons attacks (or similar) per Peterkingiron. The number of incidents is small, so is no need to separate out chemical weapon usage by nation. It is also wrong to separate out these use of such weapons by state and non-state parties, and apply the "terrorist" label (see WP:WTA) to one group but not the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Chemical weapons attacks. Seems like a good idea at this stage; no need to break the attacks down further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 21 December 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.

Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible party. Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties to Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator or Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible party
Nominator's rationale: I was going to list this for speedy renaming to change "responsible parties" to "responsible party", but "perpetrator" is shorter and no less clear. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not rename: To me, a "responsible party" is not the same as a "perpetrator". Organizations that use terror, will often claim responsebility. Any such organizations might use any number of perpetrators. Therefore changing the name of this category, will dilute the category into more smaller categories, I believe. (Another point perhaps, is that there might be notable claims available to the public, that a number of perpetrators, have individually committed acts of terror for different responsible parties.) --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible party. I think the difference between the two is hair splitting, but if this one is preferred, we at least have to make "responsible parties" singular since it's the "incidents" that gets pluralised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 21 December 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.

Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion members
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. The band is notorious for constantly changing its name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 9 December 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.

Military equipment by conflict[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War
Propose renaming Category:Cold War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Cold War
Propose renaming Category:Falklands War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Falklands War
Propose renaming Category:Gulf War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Gulf War
Propose renaming Category:Iran–Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iran–Iraq War
Propose renaming Category:Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iraq War
Propose renaming Category:Korean War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Korean War
Propose renaming Category:Kosovo War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Kosovo War
Propose renaming Category:Second Sino-Japanese War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Sino-Japanese War
Propose renaming Category:Spanish Civil War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Spanish Civil War
Propose renaming Category:Vietnam War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War
Propose renaming Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Propose renaming Category:World War I military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War I
Propose renaming Category:World War II military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War II
Proposing a start of a major renaming effort here, to make the categorys "X of Y" compliant - in addition, they look better this way. Child categories can be speedied later. The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Make clear if you propose deletion, merging or renaming).[reply]
  • Rename. I'll be adding a function to twinkle to allow ease of making speedy rename requests. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – "X of Y" is a good standard to follow. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – "X of Y" is a good standard to follow. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:05, 20 December 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.

Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are, practically speaking, homonyms. The articles in the category, without exception, are about the latter. Only the cat on Scotland uses the word "see". Additionally, the adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as "see" that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese" (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename seems to be non-contentious. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. There is a technical distinction between the see (where the bishop has his seat) and the diocese (a district), but the two are essentially duplicating each other. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 16 December 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.

Category:Religious sees[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Further recategorization may be required.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees to Category:Dioceses
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are homonyms. The adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as a see that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. If this re-name is successful, then all children of the category will also need to be re-named by the same rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Province" is a special case, in that it lacks a consistent definition across episcopally-organized churches. I question whether we should use it as a category at all. The other cases are all subspecies of dioceses and if we feel so compelled could be made subcategory hierarchies of Category: Dioceses. I suppose the other solution would be to make Category:Religious sees the root and put all the other subspecies directly from it. However there is absolutely no reason to have a "episcopal see" hierarchy with subcategories of "Religious sees in X". Behind all of this is that the hierarchy of dioceses is not especially consistent, as it cannot seem to decided whether to divide up by geography and then by church, or by church and then geography. This is important to the present discussion because the hierarchy within the different churches uses different terms and structures, so that (for instance) in Anglicanism the title of "archbishop" does not correspond to its usage in the Catholic Church (an RC archbishop for instance is more or less at the same level in the hierarchy as an ECUSA diocesan bishop, whereas an Anglican archbishop more closely corresponds to the Pope or to the head of one of the uniate churches). It might make more sense to reorganize the whole tree by church/communion and then establish separate patterns for each. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with user Mangoe's analysis above and Support the suggestion to organise by church/communion rather than by state. Ireland is a prime example where both the RC Church and the Church of Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The dioceses of each criss-cross the border. It is an entirely artificial device to pretend that they could be compartmentalised by state. Having said that, a continental geographic is probably worthwhile. It's less likely that dioceses would straddle continental divides. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support rename - while there are problems in various parts of the sub-category tree, let's at least have the head consistent with the sub-categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 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.

Category:Computing navbox templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Computing navbox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of project category Category:Computing templates, much of which is navboxes. Double-listing all the computing-related navboxes here would be much more work than it's worth. Subtopical categories are more useful here (with the exception of Category:Computing infobox templates which I think should be kept to promote reuse). Pnm (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a reasonable categorization of templates to me. If they are double categorized into templates and navtemplates, just remove the categorization in plain template category. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're all navigational templates. Some of them are navboxes, and the rest are sidebars. They're more alike than not.
It seems like "subtopical categories are more useful here" was too soft. I should have written "Non-essential categorization with harmful side-effects."
This category splits up topics, making them harder to browse:
--Pnm (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the templates under the "Computing templates" category tree are navigation templates. Some of them are stub-type templates, others are timelines. Why should navigation templates be dumped into the undifferentiated parent category, when differentiation would make it clear what kind of template they are? 65.95.15.116 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I've misunderstood what a navbox is. I thought it was a template that used {{navbox}} but from Wikipedia:Navigation templates it sounds like Template:Graph search algorithm qualifies as a navbox. That being the case, my "splitting" concern goes away. It also makes me think navigation templates in topical subcategories like IRC should not be double-listed.
I agree, it's better not to combine navigation templates with e.g. timeline templates. But it would be simpler to accomplish that by doing what Category:Computing templates urges: place navigational templates at the top and use subcategories for timeline and infobox templates. I don't see any stub-type templates.
Sorting templates is labor-intensive because the categories are sometimes on the template page and sometimes on the /doc page, and you can't use HotCat on templates. --Pnm (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3,614 Category:Wikipedia template categories at the top level, and only 22 in Category:Navbox (navigational) templates. This form is not widely used. --Pnm (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of those 22 have numerous sub-categories, so your figure is grossly misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figure many of those 3,614 have subcategories, too. --Pnm (talk) 17:57, 16 December 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.

Category:Local History[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete, C1: category that has been empty for four days. It was added to Hendra Paul Farm on 3 December and removed on 4 December. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Local History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category with no discernible purpose Stephenb (Talk) 16:48, 8 December 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.

Category:History of Hanukkah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]
Category:History of Hanukkah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization. Barely any of the articles currently so categorized mention Hanukkah at all, and those that do (except Hanukkah itself) are all part of the subcategory Hasmoneans. Besides, it's misnamed; according to creator IZAK's explanation, it's supposed to be not about the history of Hanukkah, but about the historical background that led to the Maccabean Revolt and, by extension, the institution of Hanukkah. There are already sufficient categories for this purpose, like Category:Maccabees and the aforementioned Category:Hasmoneans, and the less directly related articles, such as Seleucid Empire, shouldn't be categorized at all by what was to them a comparatively minor event. Huon (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history, this is pure history, not religion.
  2. Seleucid Empire#Rome, Parthia and Judea, see wars with Judea that is the history of Hunukkah, not just the rituals.
  3. Category:Seleucid Jews, Category:Ptolemaic Jews, Category:Hellenistic Jewish writers are part of the historical period.
  4. Antiochus IV Epiphanes#Sacking of Jerusalem and Persecution of Jews.
  5. Category:Seleucid Jewish history is part of this topic for obvious reasons.
  6. Antiochus IV Epiphanes#Rebellion of the Maccabees.
  7. Antiochus IV Epiphanes#In Jewish tradition.
  8. Category:Battles of the Maccabean revolt are historical battles, not religious events.
  9. Category:Hellenistic Jews is the cultural civil war between Jews.
  10. Category:Second Temple, not part of the holiday but part of the history leading up to it and Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of this Temple.
  11. Second Temple#Rededication by the Maccabees is a summary of the connection.
  12. Hellenization#Hellenistic period, impact on Jews and the historical clash finalized with the victory symbolized by Hanukkah.
  13. Hellenistic Judaism#Hellenism.
  14. Hellenistic Judaism#Impact of Hellenistic Judaism.

There is a legitimate amount of cross-referencing and overlap as happens with any inter-related subjects and categories. But categorization in particular lends itself to flexibility depending on what the main focus is. If the main focus is Judaism and Jewish history, then there is Hanukkah and Hanukkah has a history as well. If the main focus is Hanukkah and history, then there needs to be category that contains relevant categories. IZAK (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even if this is "overcategorization" and people like the Nominator consider it "unnecessary," others may find it useful. Categories don't eat, don't drink, consume virtually no resources or disk space and may be useful for others. I see no reason not to keep. Nahum (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a means of grouping articles by their common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely what I doubt: Hanukkah (or the history of Hanukkah) is not a defining characteristic for most of the articles currently so categorized; they don't even mention Hanukkah at all. One would have to swap the category's content almost entirely to make it do what you say it does, ending up with an altogether different category with the same name. Huon (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Per Izak.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a sufficient number of articles to make this a worthwhile category. Linda Olive (talk) 04:51, 17 December 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.

Category:Boy band members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 18:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Boy band members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two years ago, we deleted the very similar Category:Members of boy bands, in this nomination. This category's members are typically in subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, and their bands are typically in subcategories of Category:Boy bands. (FYI, I just added a bunch of subcategories to this category, but only in an attempt to categorize the members into subcategories of Category:Musicians by band.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per the previous cfd. The article Boy band states that 'the term "boy band" did not exist until the 1990s' and so a host of the articles categorised are wrong, eg all the Jacksons. Anyway we don't have any other categories of band members by music genre. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This category serves to identify a large number of members which are in a similar and unique genre. We can also create categories by genre for Members in punk bands, members in rock bands, members in reggae bands etc -- all these may be as useful to develop as is the present category for members in boy bands. The more such genre memberships are developed the more useful it becomes as some may be in more than one catgeory. Incidentally, these catgeories would be concurrent with category for Category:Musicians by band and eaccentuate its usefulness by extra information. werldwayd (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – We do have categories for musicians of other genres: Category:Rock musicians, Category:Pop musicians etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True – I should shift ground somewhat by noting that 'boy band' is not a genre of music. And a pop musician is not necessarily a band member. Occuli (talk) 12:42, 9 December 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.

Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: non-admin keep. In sorting out the category members I found sufficient ancient Arabs to retain this category. Other categories were remapped as described. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The meaning of "Arab people" in this context is ambiguous, but at the moment it is being used to group all the Islamic countries of North Africa and the middle east into a subtree. Category:Arab people gives several definitions, and if we are going to use one of these for "by origin" I think "Arab people" is not a parent to the national categories but gets pushed up to the level of the national categories, and that it in practice will contain only people who cannot be assigned to a national category by reason of timeframe (the vast majority, as most entries would be pre-national) or lack of specific national identity.
The subcategories would be affected as follows:
This is an unconventional discussion and it's possible that the titular category might be retained and repurposed, but at this point it doesn't fit the pattern we have for other "nationalities". I welcome any assistance in fixing up this nomination, which I'm sure must have some proecdural faults. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it. I think this is a good proposal. It will take a bit of manual work, but I'm willing to endorse Mangoe's suggestion if he is willing to do the necessary work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the nom needs to undertake this manually. A closing admin cannot be expected to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clear on that point; I just didn't want to make a wholesale rearrangement without some support beforehand. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 17 December 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.

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedia redirects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete – pointless over-categorisation. There is no advantage over grouping its 5 sub-categories rather than including them in Category:Wikipedia redirects. It just makes it more difficult to find the sub-categories of its sub-categories, e.g. Category:Redirects from songs, which you may not expect to find there. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:32, 8 December 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.

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. So broad a subject deserves its own category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one member of the category. Unlikely to be highly populated anytime soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – going back to basics, is this a defining characteristic of Book:Buddhism? Occuli (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are less than 2000 Wikipedia Books. Only one is on Buddhism. I checked. Unless someone decides in the near future to create several more books on Buddhism, which seems unlikely, this category will only have one page in it for the foreseeable future. That means it isn't a category at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much of the Wikipedia books category tree is poorly populated for two reasons. First, we have only c. 1,900 pages in the Book: namespace to be categorized in c. 160 Wikipedia books on... categories. Second, many community books are not currently categorized by topic. As the Wikipedia book tool is used more and more, the situation will improve gradually.
    In my opinion, it is not worth upmerging poorly populated Wikipedia books on... categories for a topic as broad as Buddhism, where there are enough subtopics for several new books to be created. If there is no consensus to keep, then upmerge to Category:Wikipedia books on Indian religions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 8 December 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.

Category:Massachusetts Libertarians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Massachusetts Libertarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only two entries in cat, neither of whom fit the larger category of "politicians" as stated (as they have never held an office). Cat is therefore redundant. MSJapan (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks to me that Joseph L. Kennedy is primarily notable for having run as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Mass. U.S. Senate election. How else would one categorize him if not as a "politician"--or, more specifically, a Libertarian Party politician from Massachusetts, which is what this category is for? If the articles need to go to AFD, that is another story. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – someone who runs for political office seems to me to qualify as a politician (and the 2 are certainly 'Massachusetts Libertarians'). If the articles are deleted then the category is empty and is automatically deleted, so it is the cfd that is redundant, not the category. It is also part of Category:Libertarian Party (United States) politicians, which is subcatted by state, so 1 article suffices. Occuli (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Making the winning of elections a qualification for a cat would favor Democratic/Republican articles at the expense of 3rd party candidates in the US.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment POLITICIAN requires that an office be held, or wide local coverage be available for mayors and council members, and #3 in particular states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability (my bold), although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The coverage of these politicians is not independent of Libertarian sources and they have not held an office at any level. To look at Kennedy in particular, he actually uses his IT business to host the MA Libertarian site, which is also where he put his campaign page, and that is about the extent of the coverage on him. So there's no way to call any of that material independent, as he likely wrote and maintained it himself. Now, this is not to say that maybe the criteria need to be reviewed, but we need to look at what it says now, not what it "should" say. It's not even a case of bias; there are a lot of Dems and GOPers who don't get elected either (state elections pages might show 4 candidates for the same seat), and that doesn't mean that the three losers should get a page. We cannot apply different criteria to a third party just because it is a third party.MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this an argument for deleting the article? But as long as the article exists and this is the reason Kennedy is primarily notable, why shouldn't the category be used to categorize him, especially if it is part of a scheme? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't seen a good argument for deleting this category as long as the two articles that are currently in it exist. There may be an argument for deleting the Kennedy article if it were nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 15 December 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.

Fingal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of this adminstrative county in Ireland is Fingal, and and the parent category is Category:Fingal. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Fingal County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Fingal would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC
  • Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. he process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of divisions of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of Fingal is under the jurisdiction of Fingal County Council. Laurel Lodged (talk)
    1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
    2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
    3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
    Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of Fingal County Council if not Fingal County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "Fingal County Council" with the area which it administers: "Fingal". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".
    The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for Fingal. And drop the personal abuse. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not at all confused. I'm quite aware of the differences. I'm also aware of the succession. The county council follows the county. One cannot have a county council without a pre-existing county. At least, I'm not aware of any. The creation of the council, t the very least, gives rise to the creation of the county, if legislation or decree has not already done so. A county has no legal existance outside of it's official local government and/or judicial functions. To infer that a county council might exist in the absense of a county is just nonsence.
Regarding the prefix / suffix debate. These arguments have been well rehersed on Project Ireland. I'm pleased with the progress that has been made and that will continue to be made. Clearly the emerging concensus may not be to the liking of all, but that's democracy for you. Certainly, in the interests of peace, I've been more than accommodating to the various sections and have consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties. If you have an issue with that, the Project page is the place to raise it. You made no contributions there, proceeding to this place instead, directly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Laurel, not true. You have not "consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties".
The prefix for the traditional counties is the long-standing status quo, and AFAICS you have not tried to change it. You are the only advocate of imposing your neologism suffixes on the new counties, and there is no consensus for that artifice. As above, open a WP:RM for the county article if you want to test support for your neologism.
I proceeded here because it was quite clear that there was no consensus at WT:IE for your unilaterally-imposed suffixes on the category names, and there were clear objections from others. Since the discussion had dragged on for months without resolution, I brought the categories here to seek a wider consensus .. and just as at WT:IE, you are in a minority of one in championing the neologisms.
Once again, you are confused. You seem obsessed with the "leagl existence of the county", as if that was the only possible existence. The categories are not legal documents, they are geographical entities. They have clearly-defined and widely-understood boundaries which have been stable more than a century, and continue to be widely used for geographical purposes both in academia and in popular usage. And all of that is completely irrelevant to the fact that we agree these categories exist, we don't disagree about the boundaries - we just disagree on whether to use the suffix which you invented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have overly-simplified the nature of that debate. The argument turns on the following point: to leave the Fingal categories with neither a prefix nor a suffix gives rise to the suggestion that Fingal itself is not a county. It might be some third force. Well it's not - it is a county. While irridentists would like to cling to the uber-nationalist notion of "32 counties" and "A nation once again", that just is not the case. There are not 32 counties in the island of Ireland today. There are not 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland today. To say otherwise is to confound the laws of this state. Again, I've no problem putting the traditional counties in their proper context (i.e. the history books), but as a consequence, it cannot be allowed to use their continued existance as articles and categories to suppress the legitimate claims to equality of the other counties. A refusal to grant them their naming rights is what that would amount to.Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just how many straw men do you have stashed in there?
Fingal is a county. We agree on that. Your persistence in restating that is a red herring, as would be quite clear to you if you had read what I have posted above.
Your obsession with ceasing to use traditional counties as categories is another straw man, because it too is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue here is naming a category which we both agree should exist, for a county which we both agree exists.
As above, if you want to press your case that Wikipedia should refer to "Fingal" as "Fingal County, then open a WP:RM for the county article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I ceased to use traditional counties as categories? My enthusiasm for equality does not lead me to advocate the removal of rights from their present holders. Moving on... If Fingal is indeed a co-equal Tier 1 Local Government structure, then why should its eponymous category not reflect that fact in its name (i.e. Category:Fingal County as opposed to Category:Fingal). This happens for all other Tier 1 Local Government structures (where the word "county" usually appears as a prefix, not a suffix). And if it's correct for the eponymous category to carry the word "county", should not the direct children also carry the word "county"? This happens for the children categories of the eponymous category of all other Tier 1 Local Government structures. What's sauce the goose is sauce for the gander. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I ceased to use traditional counties as categories? Do you need to be reminded that in the past you've repeatedly tried to manually empty a number of subcategories of Category:County Dublin?: eg [1], [2]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between ceasing (which means extinguishing) and rationalising (which is what took place in County Dublin). As I made very clear above, there is a rightful place for Category:County Dublin - in the sections delaing with historical people and events and in other limited categories that would not otherwise lend themselves to dispersion amounst their successor Tier 1 Local Government entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I failed to properly split the hair. I do like the euphemism of "rationalising" for emptying out categories, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel continues to drag in the red Herring of Category:County Dublin and its subcats such Category:Geography of County Dublin. Those are not under consideration here, so that stuff is irrelevant to this CFD.
Laurel remains fixated on the fact that Fingal is a Tier 1 local govt structure, and that this means that it must include the word "county" in its title. There are two separate fallacies contained in that:
  1. These are not categories of local government. This categories relate to things within the county of "Fingal", nothing to Fingal County Council. They are geographical categories, which cover the territory of a local authority, but most have them have feck to do with the work of the local authority. Fingal County Council has little involvement with sport in its area, or religion, or primary or secondary schools, or hospitals. Those matters are almost entirely outside its powers.
  2. The head article is called "Fingal", and category names should match the head article. The County Council's own website at www.fingal.ie/ calls it "Fingal", not "Fingal County". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note the posting of the proposer with regord to another proposal a few days ago. It seems quite relevant to this discussion also:

"per convention of Category:Counties of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland. (Stable convention established in 2007 in the discussions listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 2#Renaming_the_by-county_categories)."

I would be interested in reading the comments of the proposer why this rationale would not also apply to Fingal and and other modern administrative counties, especially given the clarification above that she regards Fingal as a county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, please read what I wrote in the para above what you just posted : The head article is called "Fingal", and category names should match the head article. The County Council's own website at www.fingal.ie/ calls it "Fingal", not "Fingal County".
That quote applies to the naming convention of the 26 traditional counties, per common usage (see WP:COMMONNAME). I Neither you nor anyone else has offered any evidence that the same thing applies to Fingal. Yes, the administraitive body is "Fingal County Council", but that does not automatically mean that the area is called "Fingal County" any more than the existence of "Mayo County Council" means that its area is called "Mayo County". Once again, if you have evidence that "Fingal County" is either the official name or the commonly used name of that county, start by opening a WP:RM discussion to rename the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the proposer should re-examine her own rationale for the standardisation of the names of categories by county. The rationale of 2007 was accepted here.

"Nominator's rationale: Rename, each of the subcategories is a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. I have created Category:Categories by county in the Republic of Ireland to accommodate several such category trees. The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town..

The important thing to note here is that the existance of the county was in itself sufficient to justify the naming to "Geography of County xxx". There is nothing in the discussions (and I've read most of them) to suggest that the naming convention was restricted to certain counties. There was no attempt to dilute the power of this sensible measure by saying that it should only include 26 counties or 32 counties or traditional counties or those counties established pre 1898. The proposer's own logic in 2007, which was accepted at that time, must compel her to withdraw her own proposals here which fly in the face of that elegant logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, it's very hard to figure out why you bother digging out old out-of-context quotes rather than reading the points repeatedly made in the current discussion. The 26 traditional counties are all known either as "Foo" or "County Foo", and the 2007 CFD discussion was about bringing the category names into line with the head articles on the counties, by standardising on the use of the prefix rather than just using the ambiguous "foo". That does not apply in the case of the new counties of Fingal, South Tipperary, North Tipp, or South Dublin, because:
  1. None of them has an eponymous town
  2. None of them is known either in law or in common usage as "County Foo"
  3. Even you have not argued that they should be known as "County Foo"
  4. You have proposed "Foo County", but you have ignored repeated requests to provide evidence that the county (rather than its local authority) is known as "Foo County", either in law or in common usage
  5. Category names follow the names of the head articles, and in no case have you even proposed the necessary first step of renaming the articles Fingal, South Tipperary, North Tipperary or South Dublin.
That's why nobody else supports your insistence on using your own neologism for naming these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can this debate be closed? The above debate is going around in circles. I agree with BHG, its time for Laurel Lodged either start an WP:RM for the head articles or withdraw their opposition to the proposed moves. Snappy (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and to match article Fingal and parent category Category:Fingal. I see no reason to use neologisms in the name of equality of treatment for the counties of Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of one good reason - it is closer to the truth. However, this should not be allowed to stand in the way of processes and procedures. Compared to others, I'm only in the ha'penny race when it comes tohair splitting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good reason for Wikipedia: as the pillar states, this encyclopedia is about verifiability, not truth. If the world calls it "Fingal", we don't add the "County" onto it just because someone thinks it would be helpful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel might find it helpful to read WP:THETRUTH. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that's better read before or after mastering WP:SARCASM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments do no credit to the contributors, myself included. If the ostensible purpose of taking the discussion out of WP:IE to this forum was to cast about for a wider audience, I can't imagine how the above unseemliness would attract neutrals to what bears all the signs of a nasty catfight. Let's agree to confine ourselves to the substance of the issue, shall we? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the one who brought up "the truth" as a standard for deciding things—this is an approach that will rarely, if ever, avoid some degree of comment on the issue, often with a pointer to WP:THETRUTH. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 18 December 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.

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the county is Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. In the case of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, there is an added problem with your proposed change: it only became a county council in 1994, so your proposed rename would exclude its use for DunLaoghaire councillors before 1994, as well as Blackrock Urban District Councillors. A sub-category specifically for the post-1994 county-councillors may be a useful addition, but would not remove the need for the wider category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. he process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of divisions of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is under the jurisdiction of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
    2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
    3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
    Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council if not Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council" with the area which it administers: "Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".
    The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. And drop the personal abuse. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and to match article Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. I see no reason to use neologisms in the name of equality of treatment for the counties of Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 14 December 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.

North Tipperary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is North Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in North Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in North Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds o clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. The process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of division of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of North Tipperary is under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council. Thirdly, in 1898 the administrative county was named "Tipperary (North Riding)", not "North Tipperary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
    2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
    3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
    Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council if not North Tipperary County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "North Tipperary County Council" with the area which it administers: "North Tipperary". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".
    The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for North Tipperary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and to match article North Tipperary. I see no reason to use neologisms in the name of equality of treatment for the counties of Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 14 December 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.

South Tipperary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is South Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article, as above. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in South Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I generally support removing the "County" as superfluous; however:
    • The name was "Tipperary South Riding" until 2001. That fact is actually slightly in favour of the move, since it means that any articles about the period 1838–2001 will be less inaccurate at "South Tipperary" than at "South Tipperary County".
    • Category:South Tipperary county councillors is the best name. A supercategory Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary should exist if Wikipedia is interested in Clonmel borough councillors, Carrick on Suir town councillors, etc. The same goes for all the other counties (e.g. Category:Local councillors in County Cork→Cork county councillors) which requires a separate CFD. Indeed I notice Category:Lord Mayors of Cork is a subcat of Category:Local councillors in County Cork even though the county council and the city council/corporation have always been separate. jnestorius(talk) 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the correction re the South Riding nomenclature. However, I disagree re the councillors: the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.
        As to Cork, yes the city has always been separate administratively, but geographically it is part of the county, so for navigational convenience it follows the convention other similar categories that Cork City is a sub-cat of County Cork. We do the same with Dublin city and county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, I think the existing convention is wrong-headed. Are there any articles in Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland where the person is a member of a second-tier authority rather than a first-tier authority? Is it likely there ever will be? If not, then they should all be renamed. jnestorius(talk) 06:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Off the top of my head, the very first one who comes to mind was actually a local councillor in South Tipp: Michael O'Brien, who hit the national headlines last year. Why do you want to uncategorise him?
            I'm sure that there are numerous others, and while they may not be correctly categorised so far (e.g. I think that Ray MacSharry was a member of the Sligo town council before reaching the Dail), that is grounds for populating the categories, not removing them.
            The effect of your position is that we would lose any by-country category for councillors (and even mayors) of town councils, or the former urban district and rural district councils. I am sure that there are plenty of notable members of second-tier councils, and while many of them may not yet have articles (or have have articles but not be categorised), it seems bizarre to insist that towns such as Drogheda, Wexford, Sligo, Tralee, http://www.skibbereentowncouncil.ie Skibbereen], or the city of Kilkenny will have had no local councillors. Don't forget that some of these places have local councillors long-predating independence: Youghal and Kilkenny are two examples which spring to mind, with several hundred years of local govt history in each case.
            In addition, this is the wrong place to push your proposal: if you still want to rename all the sub-cats of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland, they should be done en masse, with a group nomination for the lot of them, rather than by selectively picking out the few which have have other naming issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this instance, you've now convinced me the existing cats will still be required, even if county councillor subcategories should be created within each. Regarding the more general point: I agree, and already stated above, that any such rename would be a separate CFD; however it's useful to flag related issues early if there is a chance that a discussion will proceed only to be quickly rendered moot by a subsequent broader change. jnestorius(talk) 08:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. The process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of division of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of South Tipperary is under the jurisdiction of South Tipperary County Council. Thirdly, in 1898 the administrative county was named "Tipperary (South Riding)", not "South Tipperary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
    2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
    3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
    Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of South Tipperary County Council if not South Tipperary County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs)
    Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "South Tipperary County Council" with the area which it administers: "South Tipperary". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and to match article South Tipperary. I see no reason to use neologisms in the name of equality of treatment for the counties of Ireland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all related noms above. The County suffix always grated as a novel construct (no dis. to the defending ed.) RashersTierney (talk) 20:18, 20 December 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.

Category:Arab people of Turkish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arab people of Turkish descent to Category:Saudi Arabian people of Turkish descent
Nominator's rationale: Of the three members, one was a Palestinian politician and has been recategorized. The other two are are/were Saudis. Given the structure of these categories it is more appropriate to categorize them by nationality than by ethnicity. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I say go for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; WP usage of "Arab" is for ethnicity, not nationality, so "Arab people of Turkish descent" makes no more sense than "Hmong people of Pushtun descent."- choster (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- assuming the nom is accurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 16 December 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.

Category:Domažlice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Domažlice to Category:Domažlice (town) and its only subcategory: Category:People from Domažlice to Category:People from Domažlice (town)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate with Category:Domažlice District Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 8 December 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.

Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province to Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province or territory
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Includes subcategories for each of the 10 provinces and the 3 territories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Per nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 10 December 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.

Category:River Valley[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:River Valley to Category:River Valley, Singapore
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Also fixes ambiguous category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_8&oldid=1146512271"