Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:Philosophical works[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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 4#Category:Philosophical works. — ξ ^xplicit 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Philosophical works to Category:Philosophical literature, along with its subcategory structure: Category:Philosophical works by author, Category:Philosophy books by author, Category:Philosophical works by era, Category:Ancient philosophical works, Category:Contemporary philosophical works,Category:Medieval philosophical works, Category:Modern philosophical works.

Nominator's rationale: The philosophical literature category was created with the intention of containing all of this. There is no need for a "works" category for philosophy. Every "work" can be classified under literature.

Note: WP:PHILOSOPHY notified.
Note: WP:LITERATURE notified. Greg Bard 22:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are ALL philosophical works written and therefore literature? Are there no philosophical works within other spheres such as the fine arts or music? Is Die Zauberflöte, for example, not a philosophical work? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical fiction (however arbitrary) can be well extended into music or spoken epics. But opera libretto and spoken epic are literature. East of Borschov (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would answer yes to the question ,because once it crosses over into some non-written media, that media claims it. If is is a song, it belongs in music, not philosophy. If it is a scuplture, it belongs in art. People within the fields of music and art would find it quite off putting for philosophy to be encroaching on theor turf, and I would understand that. There is a sense in which everything belongs under philosophy, but we can't exactly do that pragmatically can we? Let the musicians have their music, etc. Greg Bard 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Question. What about podcasts, such as Philosophy Bites? I regard these as philosophical works, but they aren't written and therefore, by definition, can't be considered literature. OK, there isn't currently an article on these, but doesn't the category structure have to allow for new ways of doing philosophy? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a particular podcast achieved notability beyond Philosophy Bites such that it warranted its own article, at that point I would suppose there would be a transcript available. Philosophy Bites itself is properly categorized under "philosophical media." So the question of finding a philosophical "work" that wasn't also a piece of literature is still wanting. Furthermore, can someone name a single philosophical "work" (art work, song, etc) that actually had a notable impact on the history of philosophy? I am talking about notability from within the field of philosophy.Greg Bard 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative question - when Socrates was in the agora, he was doing philosophical work, but was he producing philosophical literature? Or is the latter a time-limited concept? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for the purposes of philosophy, we are perfectly reasonable to place any such thing in literature, because inevitably and invariably, that is the form it takes. Socrates in the agora? If we have an example beyond Plato (which is all clearly literature), it surely has a name, and an account in subsequent philosophical literature. Whatever existence it has beyond that need not have its own category on WP. "Works" is a bit of overcat to me. We can place the whole of "phil lit" under all the same cats as "phil works" without any problem.Greg Bard 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to make a category that will contain solely philosopgical works (texts, essays etc.). The category "philosophical literature" should contain not only works themselves, but also articles about philosophical literature in general, such as for example Consolatio Literary Genre, Soviet Orientalist studies in Islam, and also articles about magazines, encyclopedias etc, that are also not 'works', but are literature.--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. I had not considered that issue. I think conspicuously identifying this type of article as distinct from the rest of philosophical literature is wise. However, I think that is what the main "philosophical literature" category is supposed to be for. The rest is supposed to be diffused to some subcategory(ies). I think the alternative is to rename the philosophical literature task force also, in order to be consistent. This really is a difference between a piece-of-literature and a meta-piece-of-literature both of which are pieces of literature. Greg Bard 01:22, 26 June 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:A History of the World in 100 Objects[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. WP:OC#TOPTEN states Some particularly well-known and unique lists... may constitute exceptions. Of the all comments that argued to keep, I saw little evidence how this list is both well-know and unique to make a reasonable exception. — ξ ^xplicit 04:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Articles tagged in this categories are part of the A History of the World in 100 Objects 100-part radio series (15 minutes each). Categorizing pages in this way will inevitably lead to over-categorization. After removing said articles only the main article will be left. jonkerz ♠ 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This categorises items in the British Museum selected by its director as the 100 most important of the artefacts. I appreciate that this is like an awards category (which we would delete and listify), but few museum objects will receive an "award" in this way, so that this will not lead to the severe over-categorisation which awards categories and performamce by performer categories produce. Being selected as one of the most important objects in one of the world's most important museums is surely a notable distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that some classifications may be added to articles (e.g. Category:World Heritage Sites) some may not (e.g. Principia Mathematica is not worth tagging for being mentioned in Twelve Books That Changed the World). A History of the World in 100 Objects falls somewhere between those extremes, and in my opinion do not reach above the absolute level for having articles categorized in this way. I guess we have to wait for more input from other editors. jonkerz ♠ 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify trivial association better maintained as a list. This listing has little to do with the objects themselves, rather, it is the opinion of a specific bunch of curators on what they think of as important, a highly subjective rating. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no "List of..." page exist, but articles are already listified in the main article A History of the World in 100 Objects. jonkerz ♠ 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lame deletion rationale; Wikipedia has space enough for useful categories like this one. Category quite legitimate.• Ling.Nut 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, modify or else delete, listify - Change to a talk page category so that it can still be used by the GLAM/BM project. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an often repeated type of deletion discussion; (a) it is not a choice between categories or lists, both exist for different reasons on WP, (b) unique published lists are often categories on WP, this does not fall under the TOPTEN rationale (c) there is no particular precedent being set by using this category and there is no current problem with over-categorization of these types of articles about historic artefacts or any reason to think there will ever be such a problem. Fæ (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being selected for this programme is not defining of the objects and doesn't create any sort of meaningful association amongst them. Not likely to be useful for research purposes and anyone who should happen to be researching this subject is likely to start with the lead article. It has led and will likely continue to lead to inaccurate categorization, as for instance the inclusion of the Hoxne hoard on the basis of an episode about a single spice jar (which will likely never become notable independent of the hoard. As an aside, these items are not uniquely associated with the British Museum, for instance there are 14 known intact Hedwig glasses and ten known fragments and only one is held by the museum. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "Peterkingiron" rational. Overcategorisation is hardly a problem in Wikipedia. Lack of categorization on the other hand is getting out of hand, with numerous orphaned articles. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said listify, but the list already exists. The category is totally subjective. What makes this project any different then any other museum collaboration project to name the 10 best or the 50 best or the 1,000 best? Clearly the list in the main article adequately serves for navigation purposes. This also violates the arbitrary rule, why the 100 best? Well because someone decided to stop there? I just think there are enough other categories for the pieces so that this category does not really add anything to the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments that this is not overcategorization have basically ignored the guidelines of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, several of which suggest that this is a rather straightforward case of overcategorization—WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#ARBITRARY, for example. Someone mentioned that WP:OC#TOPTEN does not apply, but this is exactly the type of thing that the WP:OC#TOPTEN aims to discourage—previously published lists in a particular field that choose an arbitrary number of "best" or "most important" things in a particular field. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:50, 26 June 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:People born in Shropshire[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People born in Shropshire to Category:People from Shropshire

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NCCAT#Heritage, biographies are not categorized by place of birth, as it's hardly ever notable. — ξ ^xplicit 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. "From" is an inclusive term, covering "born in", "living/ed in", and "used to live in". No split is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per discussion above. Possibly purge the category before merger, because someone born in Shropshire but brought up elsewhere is not "from" Shropshire in any meaningful sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Merge "From" is more inclusive. Birthplace is useful for categorization structure. But not important enough to get its own category. I don't think the category should be purged. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 25 June 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:Wanted (comics)[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. Courcelles (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category was recently nominated for renaming and I suggested it be deleted as a small category with no likelihood of expansion. Since that nomination closed most of the contents of the category were deleted (per my prods) as not being notable. This would seem to confirm that the category is not needed for the few remaining articles (which are interlinked through their text). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:35, 18 June 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:Jewish sportspeople[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:OC#CATGRS there is no substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) and it's one can be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Withdrawn per User:MacRusgail ethnic rather than religious , however I have removed Category:People by religion and occupation as a parent of these

Also all of the sub categories

Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queries – and so the nom is to do what with these categories? And can the nom provide links to the many previous cfds concerning these? Occuli (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry . I'm not aware of past cfds I've had a look at the history of a few and didn't see any. If your aware of some please add them Gnevin (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sets Jewish people apart from others. Religious beliefs are unrelated to sports, in the same way as LGBT is unrelated to quantum physics, as Wikipedia:OC#CATGRS explains. Cs32en Talk to me 12:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are certain reasons why Jews as a group are different to say, Christians or Hindus. Cs32en's comments about LGBT are not helpful either, since there are a number of LGBT categories relating to things completely unconnected with sexual preference, e.g. acting, sports etc. A person's sexuality does not directly come into these things, although they may suffer prejudice, which is a different issue.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedual keep all and close debate - Non of the sub-cats are tagged. Nominator didn't look too hard for previous debates, either. Two I picked at random: chess players and fencers. Lugnuts (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware you don't have to tag sub-cats when doing a group nom but I can if it's an issue Gnevin (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you are obliged to tag all of the sub-cats, but it's a moot point since you have withdrawn the nomination. Cgingold (talk) 15:18, 18 June 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:Jewish American sportspeople[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:OC#CATGRS there is no substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) and it's one can be written for such a category, then the category should not be created Gnevin (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn per User:MacRusgail ethnic rather than religious , however I have removed Category:People by religion and occupation as a parent of these Gnevin (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are categories for Jewish people by profession. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity, of course, but there is a slight blurring of the line in this case.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:57, 18 June 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.

Singaporean people by 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 all. — ξ ^xplicit 04:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename: These categories should be renamed for consistency with similar categories that have already been renamed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many of the individuals are not of the 'ethnic descent' described, but of that ethnicity (i.e. they speak the language of the ethnic group as a first language, amongst other things) I do agree that we should not, ideally, categorise both for ethnic descent and ethnicity separately as it is nearly impossible to distinguish in most cases, as bios typically lack the required info. I think we need, eventually, to rename the categories to, for example, Category:Sinagporean people of Cantonese ethnicity or ancestry to cover both ethnic descent and ethnicity. What the heck, I ll suggest it here now as alternative rename, with the goal of setting precedent to rename the whole tree - Rename each to Category:Singaporean people of Fooian ethnicity or ancestry etc. except Rename Category:Singaporean Jewish people to Category:Singaporean Jews Mayumashu (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayumashu. Certainly these all need some kind of rename. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not really understanding the distinction between ethnicity and ethnic descent. Could you explain? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'ethnic descent', if only on WP, is meant to mean ancestry, not ethnicity. Ancestry indicates the ethnicity of one's forebearers, but not of one. An 'American of German descent' or 'American of German ancestry' is not someone of German ethnicity - they do not speak native German or subscribe to German culture as their primary culture. What has been becoming apparent though is the WP most likely needs to combine Category:People by ethnic or national descent and Category:People by ethnicity as, as I say above, few bios are robust enough to allow for one to judge if one is of the ethnicity in question or of its descent. Mayumashu (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, I have no objections to your proposal. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I don't think we need to get this technical. People of Malay ethnicity are still of "Malay descent"—the term is broad enough to cover all contingencies. For the sake of consistency, these should be renamed to the standard format. Changing to "of FOO ethnicity or ancestry" is just a more long-winded way of saying "of FOO descent", so I honestly can't see a good reason to change from the standard. There seems to be agreement that these need to be changed to something, I just don't think we should depart from the standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. For consistency reasons with numerous other categories. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 25 June 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:New Zealand Democratic Party[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. Anyone should feel free to put in category redirects after the bot runs to move the articles, should I forget to do so. Courcelles (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Democratic Party to Category:New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Democratic Party activists to Category:New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit activists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this party has changed to New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match revised title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nominator, but re-create old titles as {{category redirect}}s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 25 June 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:Christian Heritage New Zealand[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian Heritage New Zealand to Category:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose using full name to match main article Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As it is, it sounds like a category devoted to Christianity in New Zealand. Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 25 June 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:Military installations in Canada[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Military installations in Canada to Category:Military facilities in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Clear duplicaiton. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The two categories have the same scope. Dimadick (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, seems like an obvious duplication. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:52, 26 June 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:Socialist Workers Party (UK)[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. Disambiguation pages will be created, though the same caveat above applies, feelf ree to do it if I'm not around or forget after the bot. Courcelles (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Socialist Workers Party (UK) to Category:Socialist Workers Party (Britain)

Propose renaming Category:Socialist Workers Party members (UK) to Category:Socialist Workers Party (Britain) members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slight change the disambiguator proposed to match the category names to the article Socialist Workers Party (Britain). (From what I can tell, the page was moved from using the "(UK)" disambiguator because this particular party only organises in England, Scotland, and Wales. The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) has traditionally been the organiser for the same causes in Northern Ireland.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, makes sense, since Irish SWP organizes in N.Ireland. --Soman (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, but re-create the "(UK)"-suffixed categories as disambiguation pages using {{category ambiguous}}, because editors unaware of the SWP's structure may look for the "(UK)" suffix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. Dimadick (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per article, although I think it should be Great Britain not Britain but that is an issue with the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 26 June 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:Pirate Party UK[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 all. The two articles are already categorised in the parent, so an upmerge is unnecessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous categories that only contains the main articles Pirate Party UK and Pirate Party (Finland), respectively.. The articles are also in the same categories that the categories are in, so there is no need to upmerge anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- at least in the UK case. This is a NN party that got nowhere in the last general election. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parent category "Pirate parties". These are all affiliated to each other, there is yet little need of subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 25 June 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:Liberal Unionist Party politicians (UK)[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians (UK) to Category:Liberal Unionist Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is unneeded: main article is at Liberal Unionist Party and there is no Liberal Unionist Party (disambiguation). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. --Soman (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The disambiguator is un-needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If there is no such party outside the United Kingdom, there is no need for a disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as per related article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 26 June 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:Conservative Party donors[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. Courcelles (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally we don't categorize people by which organisations or causes they have made donations to. If kept, should rename to Category:Conservative Party (UK) donors to match parent Category:Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party (UK). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and don't delete. In general I support the principle hat donations are not a notable issue, but some people in the UK are notable because of the political donations: e.g. David Sainsbury, Paul Sykes, Michael Ashcroft, and Michael Brown. I do have some concerns about the precedent that this might set, but I hope we can examine any similar categories on their merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people are not defined by the organizations or political parties to which they donate money, even if the donated amounts are quite large. People donate to any number of causes over the course of a lifetime and categorizing on this basis is untenable. There are also WP:BLP implications. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be any other category with this subject matter in mind. Why is a singe Party singled out over hundreds? Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 25 June 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:Frank Miller[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frank Miller to Category:Frank Miller (comics)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match to main article Frank Miller (comics). Frank Miller is a disambiguation page. When I saw this I thought it was about Frank Miller (politician) and couldn't believe there was an eponymous category about him. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OC. The contents of this category do not come close to the complexity that makes an eponymous category necessary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of main article. With 7 well-defined subcats and sub-subcats there is more than enough to justify an eponymous category. Occuli (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, because of the number of links listed. Mayumashu (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Well-defined subcategories but needs disambiguation from other people with that name. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 25 June 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:Cook Island people[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cook Island people to Category:Cook Islands people

Nominator's rationale: Checking on-line didn t seem to turn up any definite answers to this grammar issue. I m basing this nomination on that other WP cats use: 'Cooks Islands' and not 'Cook Island' as the adjective form, in Category:Cook Islands culture, Category:Cook Islands society, and Category:Cook Islands law Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I know, "Cook Island" is the correct adjective except when referencing "Cook Islands Māori" (the language). The people are "Cook Island Māori". Certain organisations have also been given an official name that includes "Cook Islands" as an adjective, such as the Cook Islands Government. User:Grutness was a bit of an expert on this issue, as I recall, and he was strongly in favour of "Cook Island" being accepted as the standard in generic usages. You can find usages of either on the web, but official sources from New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and UNICEF tend to use "Cook Island" (though exceptions can be found). Some Cook Island(s) gov't sources are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and UNICEF. At the end of the day I don't have a strong preference one way or the other but I suppose they should be standardised to one or the other. "Cook Islands" is probably more intuitive, if not completely correct. For similar reasons we have favoured "Kiribati" even though "i-Kiribati" is technically correct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename From what I read, "Cook Island" is the correct adjective form and so on per Good Ol’factory' analysis. Hmains (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?But Good Ol'Factory's comments and provided links show both are commonly used, even by official organisations.

Actually, I only added links for ones that use "Cook Island FOO". But it's not hard to find exceptions—as I said, both are used frequently, though official sources tend to drop the "s" more often than not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support Cook Islands is the place though maybe a move to Category:Cook Islanders is more appropriate alternative in this instance. Gnangarra 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose Category:Cook Islanders. Every other subcategory of Category:People by nationality uses some form of "XXX people". Either Category:Cook Island people or Category:Cook Islands people would be preferred, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the rename does not go forward, adding a soft category redirect on Category:Cook Islands people would seem to me to be a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have no idea what is the official term, but "Island" makes it sound as the subject is a single island. The Cook Islands include at least ten populated islands and this should be reflected in the naming. Dimadick (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although the country is indeed a cluster of islands and the nominal form is "Cook Islands" - often abbreviated to "the Cooks" - the correct adjectival form in English is "Cook Island". This distinction is as important as that between England and English. I hope we don't have Category:England people. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:54, 26 June 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.