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.
Oppose -- Vegan is a more strict discipline than vegetarian. All vegans are vegetarian, but not all vegetarians are vegan. Vegan media would be appropriate as a subcat. On the other hand, I suspect that publishers cover both disciplines. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Contains two redirects after I merged the pages, but even if not merged two compilation albums don't require a category to navigate. Fences&Windows21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree, but consensus is to keep "X albums" categories, even if they only contain redirects. I don't have links at the moment, but if you need them, I can find some. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums want, in this case according to Justin, keep. I presume the reasoning is that if one is looking for Estelle Desanges' albums, one goes to Category:Albums by artist, selects "Es" and then finds that their are two redirects, and hits the Estelle Desanges article, rather than hunting through the alphabetical listing, finding nothing, and typing the name into the search box (and then maybe following a dab page). RichFarmbrough, 09:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If the albums were albums by Estelle Desanges, I would elect to keep this category since they do redirect to the album info, but the albums appear to be various artist compilations with selections by Estelle Desanges and would not be correctly categorized in this manner by current conventions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the mergers/creations of three new Republic of China (Taiwan) municipalities (Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan). (Xinbei-related categories are excluded from this discussion since the Taiwanese government is still discussing whether Xinbei should be rendered "New Taipei" in English, and I don't want to have to move categories twice if it turns out that "New Taipei" will be used.) Note that these category trees are not very densely populated, so some of the merger/renaming requests may seem initially counterintuitive but are due to the lack of "competing" categories that currently exist. --Nlu (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(note: Category:Magistrates of Tainan County is intentionally not nominated, since I believe the category should be retained separately for historical reasons.)
Comment how does this affect historical entities? Would any historical quantities be better categorized in the current categories? (aside from the magistrates category) 65.94.46.60 (talk) 06:35, 26 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: After some thought, I believe that the category's sole entry to date -- and others like it -- would better be contained with the appropriate subcategory of Category:History of computing hardware. That a particular computer happens to be in a museum somewhere is not a defining characteristic. The sole article does mention that "An IBM 604 is preserved at the American Computer Museum." Note that it does not say "the" IBM 604. Which also leads me to believe that any computer that has a single model anywhere in any museum or collection is intended by the category creator as a "preserved" computer, further increasing the 'undefiningness' of this category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One suspects that somewhere in the world there is a specimen, however fragmentary, of virtually every electronic computer that ever existed. Heck, I think I still have a Kaypro 4x in the basement. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. While the IBM 604 is probably not a great entry for this cat, and maybe even the name isn't great, there are things such as the chunk of Babbage's engine, the machines at Bletchly Park, and the Apollo equipment, the Manchester machinery (if it survived) which would be a useful category. RichFarmbrough, 09:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note. While articles may not yet exist on each piece, the Smithsonian has an extensive collection of early computers. I suspect that many other museums do as well. In the end, most of these do not operate and I'm not convinced that we need to make a distinction on which ones are operable. In fact, to verify that a specific machine is operable, turning it one may well render it inoperable. That means the contents would be in a constant state of flux. Not sure that helps anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep whether the machine will work or not is not an element of 'preservation'; it is sufficient that the computer or major components of it are still in physical existence. A little work populates this category, which does not match other categories--which mostly include computers that do not still exist. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems to have been created for computer models, not specific computers. There do not seem to be a lot of computer models of which nothing is preserved.Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not clear from the title what should be categorized here - bad start. The description says anything for which artifacts exist should be included. It is impossible to demonstrate that artifacts don't exist so technically everything should be included. Finally, I don't understand how this category helps readers. It seems like Category:Early_computers should cover it. --Kvng (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Every article in Category:Peshawar District is exclusively about Peshawar, and hence the former is redundant. Keeping in mind that Peshawar is a City district unlike other normal districts, all content under Category:Peshawar District should be merged into the city category (Category:Peshawar) and Peshawar should stand as the main subject. Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale As I made clear below, Karachi Districtis basically Karachi and on that grounds, the category should match the subject as it is. Category:Karachi District would be better if its contents are merged into the current redirect Category:Karachi. Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Similiar to the reason I gave for my nomination on Category:People from Karachi District below. Peshawar is not just a District but a City District i.e. the district is made up of the urban city itself. Therefore, anyone from Peshawar District would be just from Peshawar. The current name is redundant. Mar4d (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This nomination was long waiting in the rear, it just needed to be brought up by someone. Anyone with a bit of geographic knowledge would know that Karachi is a city, and Karachi Districtis encompassed of the city itself. The current category's name is inaccurate and misleading should be renamed to match the accurate name of the location. You may also want to read City Districts of Pakistan to see how Karachi District should be differentiated from any other District of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. At this point I'd suggest that an appropriate introduction be added to clarify the purpose of the category and for any needed inclusion criteria. Follow that with the purging several editors have recommended. After that is done, the category can be brought back here for deletion or reaming if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Fox News Channel staff. This would include journalists and presenters on the pay roll. It should not include guests or people who appear or are featured on the channel. Since staff members will be there for a significant time, this should not be caught by the ban on performance by performer categories. Regular contributors who are technically not staff should probably be included. The category may need purging to comply with this definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created several of the categories under Category:People by company. I generally end the category name with "people" rather than employees to avoid issues with consultants, owners or other people closely affiliated with the company that are not "employees". Maybe that's too vague for this cat though as I agree we should not include someone who made an appearance on one of their shows but their actual hosts, writers, personalities, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly purge. There's clear precedent for executives being in categories by company, and it seems illogical not to allow that for a news organization. However, it is not clear that anchorpeople and commentators should be categorized that way. The category is almost certainly too broadly populated right now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Some in that parent category are "journals," some are "academic journals," and some are "publications." That deserves a cleanup.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Many of the journals are in fact called "Nature Foo", where foo is a branch of science, but not all. Nature (journal) requires a disambiguator. The present category is too like "nature journals", which might include for example BBC Wildlife magazine. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - somewhat reluctantly - the logical naming convention (while still falling foul of the publisher explanation above, complying with common name) would be Nature (journal) journals, I think this fails on the grounds of silliness. BBC Wildlife would be a Nature magazine, I would say. RichFarmbrough, 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. The discussion is split between the nomination and doing nothing, but the debate is unique in that both sides accept that there is possible ambiguity. The well-developed tree at Category:County Dublin indicates the needs for multiple "Dublin" structures. The only question is, does common sense or ignorance of Irish governmental structure overrule the ambiguity in the minds of reasonable readers? It seems from the discussion below that it does not (see the comments on the sport category, for example); the governmental structure alone is complicated enough that articles could be miscategorized if these stay how they are. My read of the discussion is that if Category:County Dublin contains the word "county," this set needs the word "city." (It is probable that this rename will put some articles into city categories that don't belong there. We may need to go through each to make sure that all are correctly categorized.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename all by adding the disambiguator "(city)" to clarify that these categories refer specificically to the city of Dublin, and not to the surrounding County Dublin. Although the bare word "Dublin" strictly applies only to the area under control of Dublin City Council, it is also used commonly used to refer to some or all of the wider (but imprecisely-defined) Greater Dublin Area. Note that the disambiguator was added to Category:People from Dublin (city) in CfD 2007 March 19.
This follows the pattern used with some other cities whose names are the primary usage of ambiguous term, because ambiguity has more disruptive consequences with categories. (see e.g. Category:Birmingham, West Midlands for the city of Birmingham)
Comment -- This is a follow up to a well-planned campaign to tidy up Dublin-related categories. However, Birmingham categories only have to have a disambiguator to keep away articles relating to Birmingham, AL. Is that really a problem here? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But I have a question. If an article is listed under Category:Parks in Dublin (city), is it correct for it to be also listed under Category:Parks in County Dublin? If so, then each of the parks articles in each of the 4 counties that make up the former county of Dublin (i.e. the current Dublin Region) will also have a listing in Category:Parks in County Dublin. Would this not introduce quadruple redundancy? I would also point out that each of the 4 counties is a member of the "Counties of the Republic of Ireland" parent category, as indeed is the former county of Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, that question really has nothing to do with the renaming, so should not be raised in this discussion ... but I'll answer it anyway.
County Dublin was dissolved in 1994 except for historical articles specifically assciated with the "County Dublin" we should not be categorising anything as "County Dublin". For comparison we dont categorise using Bombay, Ayres Rock, or CalcuttaGnangarra02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had already made the same point below, and it was answered there. I don't know what you think will be gained by duplicating that part of the discussion, but: a) Your comparison is poor, because Bombay, Ayres Rock, and Calcutta have not been abolished, they have been renamed. b) County Dublin was not abolished. Dublin County Council was abolished, but the County remains in widespread use as a geographical term, and these are geographical categories. c) Most articles have been dispersed to the 4 geographical sub-categories, but that is not workable in all cases; d) If you want to propose the deletion of Category:County Dublin, please open a separate CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Down with this sort of thing, perhaps? I should not claim yet to oppose this proposal as I have not had time to reflect on it thoroughly but it may be worth recording an initial gut feeling of resistance to it as being possibly unnecessary and inelegant, done in the name of a needless definitiveness (no offence directed at the proposer). Consider: What do most people, including non-Irish people, think when the word Dublin is used? I submit that people think overwhelmingly of the city rather than the county, especially non-Irish ones who constitute the overwhelming mass of Wikipedia readers. I am comfortable speculating that most non-Irish readers are unaware of the county, and even Irish natives have a strong default assumption that Dublin refers, first, to the city, as people talk of Cork, Galway, and Limerick, similarly. Therefore, I feel quite strongly that adding a parenthetic disambiguator is not required. Do we need "(Dublin)" in category names like Cinemas in Dublin, Parks in Dublin, Quays in Dublin, Railway termini in Dublin, Squares in Dublin, and Theatres in Dublin? I do not denigrate Dublin the county by implying that none of these things can exist beyond the city limits but my experience of Dublin city and county, and the common sense cultivated by that experience, make me believe that the disambiguator is unnecessary. There are no railway termini in County Dublin outside the city and—despite the nominal Tallaght Square in County Dublin—the title Squares in Dublin makes most people think of the city by default—it is understood—so why attach (in my view) unsightly and inelegant parentheticisms when they are not needed? I am not convinced we need to be so definitive when there is a default, common understanding of the word Dublin. We do not summon the plumber when the pipe is in no danger of bursting. — O'Dea05:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the pipe burst a long time ago :) See for example the misuses in the article I linked below in my reply to Gnangarra.
I think your claim that the word "Dublin" is widely understood to apply to the city is misleading. Yes, the city is much better known outside Ireland, but there is no reason to assume that people outside Ireland will be aware either that it shares the name with the surrounding county, let alone that they should be aware of where such boundaries lie, or that they will be aware of where the current boundaries lie after two expansions in the last 80 years. The disambiguator makes it clear to all that there is a distinction, and this is the only way of making the existence of the distinction clear when a category is applied to an article. In the the text of an article, we can of course say that Harold's Cross lies within the jurisdiction of Dublin City Council, but there no such annotation in the list of categories at the bottom of the page unless we use the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (including counter suggestion): My reflections, described above, have settled on opposition. Let the category names default to the city of Dublin and, like the Category:Places of worship in Dublin (and some others), include a note in the category pages themselves to indicate that they refer to the city. The existing statement "This lists places of worship in Dublin city which is the local government area under the jurisdiction of Dublin City Council" is helpful, except that I would reword it, "This category is about xxx in the city of [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]], meaning the local government area under the jurisdiction of [[Dublin City Council]]", and let that act as a template for statements to be included in all the other city of Dublin categories. That would dispel any ambiguity without attaching parenthetic suffixes to category titles. This solution works, and it is prettier. Indeed, I suggest undoing the recent renaming of county categories to cut off the titular parenthetic suffixes "(county)" and insert one-liners within the category pages to clarify what they are. Before the advent of cable television in Ireland, everyone had antennae on their roofs—they were bristling eyesores. Let us bury our useful disambiguators underground. — O'Dea06:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burying disambiguators underground makes them rather useless.
I fully approve of adding clarification to the text on the category page, because it helps the reader ... but the text there is invisible to an editor adding the category to an article. So it does nothing to dispel the ambiguity which exists for editors in applying categorisation, or to readers who are unaware of the precise nature of the distinctions between the various usages of "Dublin". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose its doesnt make sense.... Dublin is at Dublin not Dublin (city) which is a questionable redirect created in 2004. The article has been at Dublin since creation in September 2001 so theres no doubt about its meaning or being confused with other uses, as the category structure reflects the article topic the categories requires no disambiguation either. Gnangarra15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin is ambiguous, but the article has no disambiguator because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is wrong to say that "there is no doubt about its meaning", and an examination of the articles on the greater Dublin area shows how the unqualified term "Dublin" is widely used in a looser sense than the narrow confines of the city. For example, I just took a look at the article on Sandyford, where I see that the "commerce section" describes the area as in "Dublin". The Irish Management Institute is described as being "in Dublin", and the Currency Centre is described as being in "Sandyford, Dublin". All those entities are in fact in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown
Normal practice is to align the category structure to the name of the topic on which the category is based. Factual errors in articles that lead to incorrect categorisation wont be corrected by changing category names. Gnangarra02:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed normal practice to align category names with the head article, but where the head article is the primary usage of ambiguous term is now normal practice to disambiguate it from the other uses. If you were unaware of this, I can dig out a list of examples.
Please don't resort to straw men: I did not claim that factual errors in articles would be corrected by changing category names. I cited those misuses as evidence against your assertion that "Dublin" is not ambiguous. How many more examples do you need? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a straw man, the inference does seem to be that clarifying the cat would reduce errors in articles. Otherwise, why pick inaccurate exmaples? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect, my point is that clarifying the category name will reduce errors in categorisation, not that it will somehow correct errors in articles.
@Gnangarra: ambiguity is not a binary switch, either on or off. It is a scale, and there are different ways of handling it, depending on various factors such as the context and the degree of ambiguity: see WP:DAB.
"The most populous county is Dublin, and the biggest city is Dublin. I worked for several city councils, first Galway and most recently Dublin. I have been reading up on John Horgan (who was an MEP for Dublin). My brother in Terrenure is GAA-mad, and naturally supports Dublin, but my sister had to emigrate and flew out from Dublin last week. She is driving back for St Patricks Day, taking the ferry from Holyhead to Dublin". Seven different Dublins in 3 sentences.
Look at how http://www.ucd.ie/aboutucd.htm never once mentions that Belfield is not actually in Dublin (it's in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown) and http://www.ucd.ie/about/location.htm only mentions Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown as a source of maps; the repeated message is that UCD is in Dublin. By your definition, most of it isn't; do you really want to stand by a definition of Dublin as an unambiguous term whose proper usage means that UCD's main campus in not in Dublin?
so your saying Dublin City Council is Dublin, Dublin GAA is Dublin, County Dublin is Dublin Dublin Port is Dublin, Dublin (European Parliament constituency) is Dublin, Dublin Airport is Dublin you've just truncated the names of these articles. Yet these are all common articles types for almost every other city in the world like every other city it doesnt change the fact that Dublin is the article for which the category structure is referring to. Everything within Dublin City Council will be in Dublin so all categries will interesct there's no dab needed for these two. County Dublin was disolved in 1994 and replace by the three entities of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin articles associated with them will be in categories identified by those names, which would be subcats of dublin categories anyway because that is what dublin is. Dublin GAA is an atheletic association so it'd be a subcat of Categry:Sport in Dublin right where people would expect it. Dublin Port is also in Dublin so it will also 100% interesect in all categories so its a logical subcategry of Category:Dublin. Dublin (European Parliament constituency) is not a place but a politcal position it wont have sports, buildings, religion categries to confuse anyone and its another subcat of politics in Dublin. Dublin Airport is in Fingal which is one of three adminstartive areas that make up Dublin. Thanks for the lesson on Dublin but I still see n reason to disambiguate Dublin because the things that yu highlight as being cause for concern just arent, if the right category structure is put in place, in fact by having a dublin as the parent category all the adminstartive counties as sub categories any concerns over erroronous inclusion in the dublin category can be easily fixed by changing the article to one of the three administrative areas subcats. Gnangarra13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice switch in position: you started out arguing that Dublin is not ambiguous, but you seem to be saying that despite its many usages, you don't want to consider any ambiguity other than geographic ambiguity.
The fundamental problem remains that, as in the geographical examples I have given, "Dublin" is an ambiguous geographic term, which is also used to refer to the former County Dublin. I have given you example of that usage both in wikipedia and in reliable sources, but you have ignored them.
I know that County Dublin was divided, and the problem here refers to ambiguity of one of the terms used for the sub-categories. You seem to be saying that once we have the categorisation is right, all will be OK ... whereas the problem is the reverse: that articles will not be correctly categorised unless these categories are clear which geographic meaning of "Dublin" they refer to, and that's what the disambiguator does.
Rather interestingly, your own reply above illustrates my point perfectly. You says "Dublin GAA is an atheletic association so it'd be a subcat of Category:Sport in Dublin". Wrong: Dublin GAA covers the whole of the former County Dublin, so it belongs in Category:Sport in County Dublin. The ambiguous name of such a category led you miscategorise the article you selected ... which is precisely what this renaming is designed to avoid. (Interestingly, Category:Sport in Dublin in a redlink, because the category is currently named Category:Sport in Dublin City. This nomination corrects that to Category:Sport in Dublin (city), to clarify that the word "city" is a disambigautor, not part of the city's name)
Please don't feel bad for making the mistake: it's exactly what happens when categories are named ambiguously, and the renaming will help you and other editors avoid such mistakes in future. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on I havent changed position County Dublin was disolved in 1994, we should not be using categories of defunct regions for current articles/subjects. Given that County Dublin is defunct the use of Dublin is not ambigious as the area that formed county dublin is now three separate counties all of which constitute what is known as Dublin Gnangarra04:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were right that all trace of County Dublin had been abolished in all current usage (which is not the case), that would not remove the ambiguity. Much of wikipedia's content is either historical in nature or uses sources dating back before the 1994 changes, so ambiguity persists long after an entity is officially abolished. By your logic, we would say that a person's name was not ambiguous if it was shared only by dead people.
In this case, we are not talking solely about historical usage. Dublin County Council ceased to exist in 1994, but Category:County Dublin is a geographical category, not a local govt category. County Dublin continues to be widely used to describe a geographical entity, and although most articles in the area are categorised under the areas corresponding to the new local authorities, we retain Category:County Dublin for several reasons, including: 1) as a container category for its successor counties, to assist navigation; 2) for those articles which have not yet been recategorised under the successor counties; 3) for items which pre-date the new counties; 4) for items such as Dublin GAA which continue to be organised on the basis of the geographical county.
Aaarrrggghhh (known in more restrained circles as "Comment"): Policy discussions about Irish county names are all over the places with opposing decisions made owing to lack of coordination or oversight. While here in this discussion we have a proposal to name Dublin categories with "(city)" after them, the very recent decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 8#Dublin went the other way, in the wake of which Cydebot went chuntering around various Dublin articles on 24 November 2010 propagating that category change decision. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing, and to employ a Dublinism (city), it's a pig's mickey of a process. There is a danger of whiplash injuries occurring. — O'Dea11:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the process is coherent, tho that may not be immediately obvious, because it has been done in a few steps. We did unfortunately have an episode where one editor acted outside of CFD and manually engaged in a restructuring of Dublin categories using titles such as "Fingal County" and "Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown County", as well as emptying and deleting-out-of-process lots of the sub-categories of Category:County Dublin. The deleted categories were restored in December, and newly-created categories were renamed at CfD 2010 Dec 8 and Cfd 2010 Dec 22.
What happened at the November 8 CFD was that four recently-created categories were renamed from "Foo in Dublin City" to "Foo in Dublin", because they did not conform to the convention of Category:Dublin -- that sub-categs should be called "Foo in Dublin", to match Category:Dublin and because the name of the city is "Dublin", not "Dublin City" or "Dublin Town". It's just plain, unvarnished "Dublin". The other twenty-something categories listed here were untouched.
So we now have the same naming structure applied consistently to the former County Dublin, and the four local authority areas with in its area.
Having sorted out the inconsistencies and misnamings, the one issue remaining is that the bareword "Dublin" is geographically ambiguous, hence this proposal to add the parenthesised disambiguator "(city)". That is not a reversal of the Nov 8 CFD, which corrected a misnaming of the capital, and ensured that all the categories relating to the city were named according to the same format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I told ya so. The decision of Nov 8th was very shorted sighted. I predicted this at the time "Having said all that, the proposer is correct in one thing - it could be illogical of the above categories to remain as named if the parent was not renamed. If the proposer intends to formulate a new proposal to rename Category Dublin to "Category Dublin City" or "Category Dublin city", I will be happy to second the proposal". My advice was ignored and look at the pretty place we're in now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICS, you were, and remain, the only person who wanted to rename Category Dublin to "Category Dublin City" or "Category Dublin city". The capital city is not called "Dublin City", and it is not called "Dublin city"; it's name is "Dublin". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (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:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation
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.
Procedural note. All the subcats are "X who died in Nazi concentration camps," "Y who died in Nazi concentration camps," so all of those would presumably need to be renamed as well. I recommend nominating them so that users who visit them will be directed to this discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"died" is also problematic because it may give the misleading impression that the deaths were innocent. But this discussion is a side note and I may just do as you suggested and create a parent cat. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Died is at least relatively precise. One might suppose, even without any knowledge, that of the millions who died, not all were killed - certainly not all by the camp system per se. Attempting to move to "killed" would place an unnecessary burden of proof for inclusion. RichFarmbrough, 10:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The camp system was a killing machine and was so intended. Anyone who died while interred in a concentration camp can precisely be described as being killed. As an analogy, one who is shot to death does not have to prove that he would not have died of a heart attack at the precise moment he was shot. This is all academic however because I am making no argument to include "killed" in any category name.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Died is a neutral term which includes death by natural causes, accidental death,and intentional killing. Using "died" removes any scope for pedants to argue that someone should be excluded from the categories because their death was due to disease rather than to a direct act of killing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The present description is precise. Victims of the Holocaust is broader, including for example the victims of massacres carried out in the Baltic states, who were murdered by Nazi death squads in their villages. I suspect that few of them were notable as for example historians. A bigger question may be the categorisation of survivors by subsequent occupation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Peterkingiron, but would support move to "Nazi concentration camp deaths by occupation" per above. I have here some unease about noting by occupation, feeling it is rather irrelevant from the concentration camp point of view, and looking at, say, fine art in Europe in the middle of the twentieth century, the relevant category, or parent category at least, would be Category:Artists who died in World War II. RichFarmbrough, 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
opposeNazi concentration camp is a specificly define term and they operated from 1933 - 1945 they werent Extermination camps which operated from 1939 to 1945, concentration camps intended for political prisoners and those who opposed the Nazi regime. The Holocaust has a disputed definition the main pov/focus is on Jews though a significant scholarly definition also includes others groups. A category using Holocaust title will more likely give the reader a bias impression that its about Jewish victims, where as the current name doesnt create this bias as such viewers will expect to also find political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies etc along with Jewish people. Gnangarra15:45, 6 January 2011 (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.
