Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Whampoa Military Academy alumni[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Category:Whampoa Military Academy alumni is not a category that is large enough to justify splitting it into alumni by graduating class. I suggest upmerging back to the parent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2016 (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.

Redundant DYK categories[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems for some reason, between the months of December 2012 and February 2013, the passed and failed WP:DYK categories were split into two redundant categories each. These three months were the only three months where this was done. (Compare all pages starting with "Category:DYK/Successful" to all pages starting with "Category:Passed DYK nominations from" and all pages starting with "Category:DYK/Unsuccessful" to all pages starting with "Category:Failed DYK nominations from" for further comparison.) In fact, most, if not all, of the pages tagged with the "Category:DYK..." category are already tagged with their respective proposed merge targets. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the redundant categories and leave a redirect in place. There was a discussion regarding the "Passed/Failed model that was in use for categorizing DYK nominations and the potentially unwanted negative connotations it carried. I offered successful/unsuccessful as a more neutral model but did not follow up on the discussion, nor what would become of these categories. I will endeavor to find the discussion, in case there is a consensus that the merge ought be in reverse of the nominated form.--John Cline (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the discussion I alluded to. It is clearly in favor of maintaining the status quo. I am not sure why or how these continued in use until now.--John Cline (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I struck the above as the persistence of these categories is clearly related to matters I should have followed-up on. The mess was entirely mine and I apologize for adding unneeded work to our project.--John Cline (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2016 (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:Practical disciplines[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: it's the same fgnievinski (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (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:Participants in the September 11 attacks[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 about whether or not the term "perpetrators" can be used as a NPOV term for this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is sort of C2C with the other subcats of Category:Islamist mass murderers, and language in Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator, but thought further discussion could be helpful. The Commons category, for example, has the current name as well. But I think the proposed name is clearer. "Participants in" sounds much broader than "Perpetrators of", like we might find notable first responders here. That's certainly not the intent. BDD (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Is it POV to call a spade a spade? Wiktionary calls says a perpetrator is "One who perpetrates; especially, one who commits an offence or crime" (cf. language at WP:CRIME). It's difficult to see how the September 11 attacks don't qualify as "an offence or crime" by any reasonable standard. Using language like those other categories would definitely broaden this one's scope. I'm not necessarily opposed to that if there's consensus, but we'd need to update its own categorization. And if consensus finds "perpetrator" objectionable, we'll want to change the other categories I cited. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: c'mon, I'm sure you are well aware that the people responsible for the attack regard it as a legitimate action in what they regard as a war. A lot of people disagree with that, but that doesn't make either side's view neutral.
Same with the atomic bombings, or the bombings of Dredsen and Hamburg. There are very strong views on both sides, but Wikipedia doesn't pass judgement.
Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not make any moral judgement in the category titles, and should not choose a view of whether the attacks were wicked, wonderful or wotevah. The readers are quite capable of forming their own view on that.
I am of course open to a proposal which narrows the scope, but not at the expense of neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should the first sentence of September 11 attacks ("... a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda...") be rewritten? --BDD (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the wording "Islamist" could be reconsidered. "Saudi-Arabic" is missing. -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for what BrownHairedGirl said. Judgemental. And didn't one of those miss the bus and so dit not perpetrate? I am already astonished that Category:Islamist mass murderers exists. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "participants" could connote either active perpetration, or aiding and abetting, or just plotting, or even, in a broad brush, anyone who took part ("participant" in the literal sense; as victim, first responder, whatever). When we're dealing with something that is both widespread and covert it blurs lines further. Did whoever plan 9/11 "participate" in it? What about the flight training schools, were they absolutely non-participant? where it would be clear that they were non-perpetrators? And the building owners that allegedly told people to go back into the as-yet hit 2nd building? The line may be easier to draw with 9/11 than with other mass-casualty affairs but the precedent Category:Holocaust perpetrators seems to argue that the language proposed has some merit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, including the Hamburg cell as "perpetrator" is far-fetched too. Such categorization is judgemental (non-NPOV). We need a wording for "involved on the negative side". -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the actively causing side; we don't want to go into how various folks fell asleep at the wheel. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Quite a relevant matter, encyclopedic (however difficult to do it right), and core of this CfD. -DePiep (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The difference between the atomic bombings and 9/11 is that one was sponsored by a national government and one was not. See Reactions to the September 11 attacks. Even Islamic governments (including the Palestinian authority, etc.) condemned the attacks. Even North Korea condemned the attacks, and they're usually the country threatening to nuke the United States. When every single nation in the world condemns the attacks, then it's not an NPOV issue to call them crimes. See WP:FRINGE. A non-government group of individuals considering these to be legitimate attacks as part of a war is a fringe view, not a POV that we should cover as "equal" to the worldwide condemnation of these attacks by every major world government. ~ RobTalk 15:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sponsorship or lack of it by one or more national govts is a read herring; WP has absolutely no business in taking a view on the legitimacy or otherwise of actions by states vs those of non-state actors. The non-state nature of these atacks does not remove or reduce WP's obligation to take an WP:NPOV, and to avoid partisan terminology in category names. I sincerely hope that Rob is not arguing that the public statements of national govts are the only entities whose views matters in considering NPOV.
      This like the use of the word "terrorist" to describe people who carry out this sort of attack: justifiable by many many sources, but abandoned in category names because it is a partisan label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Perpetrator" means "a person who perpetrates, or commits, an illegal, criminal, or evil act". Governments define which actions are illegal, since a crime is "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law". Ergo, yes, governments are the only bodies that matter in determining who has committed a crime, and therefore whether the use of the word "perpetrator" is accurate and neutral. A fringe minority may believe that the attacks shouldn't have been a crime, but that doesn't mean they weren't a crime. This is already written in to relevant policies such as WP:BLPCRIME, which indicates that a court of law (i.e. a government) decides whether someone has committed a crime or not. Pretending that the legality of the 9/11 attacks is under dispute because fringe groups believe they should be legal serves no encyclopedic function. Should we rename Category:Child sexual abuse to a more neutral name because of pedophile/pederast advocacy organizations? No, because it's a criminal act as per, well, every government. Child sexual abuse is actually more of a gray area than this category, due to low ages of consent in certain developing countries. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is shifting from the topic, Rob. Issue is not whether 9/11 was a crime (let alone on why Malau has a say in this). Current and proposed title is about describing those listed. And, reversely, if the proposal would be followed, whether those categorised are labeled correctly (again test example: so Hamburg Cell did it)? As BHG explained, it still is judgemental in the description (cat name wording). There could be created a "Category: Countries that call 9/11 a crime" (leave it up to the countries), but it is not to this encyclopedia to claim "countries said so, so WP takes that opinion too". -DePiep (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A perpetrator is one who commits a crime, as I stated earlier. If it's NPOV to call 9/11 a crime, then it's NPOV to call those who committed the crime perpetrators. That's not shifting; it's using the definition of the word that's being called non-neutral. And since crimes are determined by governments, it very much is our place to say "countries said so and reliable sources reported that they said so, so WP bases our category names on the reliable sources". ~ RobTalk 13:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'm convinced by Rob's arguments here. The view that 9/11 was not a criminal act is about as fringy as one can get. It was criminal in U.S. law, in international law, and no one really even attempted to argue otherwise. "Perpetrators" seems apt here; "participants", perhaps too broad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said 9/11 is *not* a criminal act, here? How does that relate to this topic, let aloner being fringe or not? If that were the topic, then the proposal could be "Criminals ..."? That's quite a shift of the area Categorized. It's not about the deed, it's about the persons/organisations. -DePiep (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one, explicitly, but there have been suggestions that using "perpetrator" is too POV because it is "judgemental" and presumes that the act was criminal. I think that concern is fringy. I don't understand what is meant by your fourth sentence above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current name is accurate and NPOV. The non-neutral view of the target may not be that bad, but it is not really an improvement either, and may also involve assigning blame equally to those who died in the attack, when a few may have been drawn along by more forceful personalities and not been fully perpetrators. They were all participants, and I see nothing gained from the rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many more people "participated" in the events in some way or another. Should the category be further populated? --BDD (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There were plenty of people who enabled the attacks and are still alive today. I don't see any reason we should split hairs here; the 19 who did these horrible things don't really need a category of their own. "Participants" implies it was voluntary - as in, they could have just as easily not done this had they changed their minds. First responders & other victims, on the other hand, had no choice; they would have chosen to not participate in this, given the chance. Also, the current category title implies people who actualized the attacks themselves; it's not to say that the ultimate victims had anything to do with enabling it in any way. The victims didn't attack anyone and no one made them to. This is the broadest & most neutral term we can use to refer to the parties involved in the scheme, who could have just as easily chosen to not do it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (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:Conformed users[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: has been speedily deleted already by User:Anthony Bradbury. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only a single user page, and was created by the user whose user page appears in the category. The meaning of the category is unclear. (What is a "conformed" user?) General Ization Talk 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've concluded with some confidence that the user was attempting to add themselves to a non-existent category "Confirmed [not Conformed] users" to enhance their credibility as an editor (which, given their editing history, could use some enhancing), and have consequently removed the user's page from the category they created. General Ization Talk 18:41, 14 June 2016 (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:Narrow gauge railways in the Republic of Macedonia[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. There might be more support for this proposal if it was part of a wider upmerger of other single-article categs of narrow-gauge railways. But on its own, this proposal has not reached consensus.
I note too that this proposal would have removed the content from Category:Narrow gauge railways in Europe, and I don't see any rationale from the nominator (Andy Dingley) to justify that removal. I presume it was an oversight ... but please, can CFD nominators proposing mergers check carefully whether multiple merge targets are needed? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rail transport in Macedonia is itself a small category, but justified as the top-level topic within a country. The newly created narrow gauge category though fails SMALLCAT. AFAIK, there were only ever two NG lines in the country, one of those is long gone and there is little chance of an article on it. All this can be adequately handled by categorization at Rail transport in the Republic of Macedonia Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the cats for the other NG lines in former Yugoslavia. The difference is that the 760mm gauge lines in Northern Yugoslavia (and as far south as Montenegro) were quite extensive, the 600mm lines found only in the South (Macedonia) much rarer.
The question here, and presumably why DePiep created the new cat, is about consistency. There were lots of 760mm, these justify categorization. The 600mm does not justify this. Now does MediaWiki categorization and WP practice require the two branches of the category tree to be the same? I see no reason why. Yugoslavian railway provision was not consistent, our categorization in describing it should not invent additional consistency in order to describe this.
I'd be happy with broader Category:Narrow gauge railways in Yugoslavia or Category:Narrow gauge railways in the Balkans categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except for huge exceptions (like: Russian gauge track in Russia), I don't see a need to combine size and country in one cat name. Looking for, say, NG tracks in Switserland, am I supposed to know beforehand what the size is I'm looking for? (in a list of cat:xxx mm gauges in Switserland)? This specific category is in a tree without such size--country combinations, so keeping it that way is easy. In general, this applies to many more areas in Category:Track gauges. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. As it is, it fits perfectly in the tree: Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_country. If small categories in there are to be upmerged or otherwise changed, it should be done by broad sweep covering all. As it is, Category:Track gauges by country is full of such situations. Making another incidental exception does not help ease of navigation. In fact, such deviation is a C2C reason for Speedy cat renaming. We better develop a comprehensive plan eg at WT:TRAINS. -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as 22 out of 57 countries only have one or two entries, it's not realistic to consider this a well-developed established tree. Agree on having the others nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite. The category tree is well-developed. An consistent change (eg by number of pages in) should be discussed category-wide. Making a single exception is no solution, and surely not an improvement. (Note that this proposal is reducing page-numbers per subcategory by upmerging from 'country', not cutting out such a subcategory. So it would be breaking the '... by country' setup). -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we should leave it to a single exception, instead all small categories should be treated equally. Having said that, I'm not against closing this discussion without action and starting a fresh nomination with all before mentioned 22 countries, and maybe some extra. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be reasonable to flag it there, but CfDs should really stay at CfD, so that people can find them. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we should not move a CfD discussion. I meant to say: withdraw this incidental one, and start a blanket discussion at WT:TRAINS for the whole category tree. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2016 (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:Non-governmental organization stubs[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. There seems to be support in principle for this proposal, but only if part of a wider set of changes. So pls feel free to make a new nomination addressing those concerns. No need to delay, because discussion on this nom stalled weeks ago, and the discussion should have been closed weeks ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the participants — @Rathfelder, Fayenatic london, and Peterkingiron: — to notify them of the belated closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! omitted @Marcocapelle:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main category has been deleted Rathfelder (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 07:14, 14 June 2016 (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:Video game articles needing reassessment[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:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment by weight of argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category do not "need" reassessment, instead they're requesting reassessment of their current rating. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - more in line with the way the category is used. With respect to Czar, most of the maintenance cats come from an editor putting a tag on an article/section: "There is a problem here". This cat gets populated because an editor of a page wants another editor to come by and give the article a reassessment, and maybe some tips for improvement- not the same thing. --PresN 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment since this is an internal maintenance category it should include wikipedia in its title, moreover, articles don't "request" anything - people do, as this is "Categories for discussion" not "Categories requesting discussion", a similar name seems indicated to me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (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:Organizations by structure[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. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as a small category, and one of too many categories of the form "Organizations by parameter" (see the tree of Category:Organizations). Presumably the target "by type" fits well; if it wouldn't fit this category should plainly be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2016 (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:Northern Irish Queen's Counsel[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:Northern Ireland Queen's Counsel. There is a consensus not to use "Northern Irish", and in this specific case there are arguments against the usual current convention of "from Northern Ireland". I am satisfied that there is sufficient support here to use "Northern Ireland QCs" in this case. As for others, this discussion alone does not provide a clear enough consensus to rename others likewise; but this close is no bar to opening a wider discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, I noticed a lengthy discussion about this at CFD/S. The arguments in a nutshell:
  1. the current name is the one single outlier name of this format in the Northern Ireland tree (= pro rename)
  2. the current name is the usual format in the Queen's Counsel tree (= con rename)
  3. the "from Northern Ireland" format overruled the format of occupational categories in the past with clear consensus (= pro rename)
This nomination does not aim at having a wider discussion about the Northern Ireland categorization, since a wider discussion requires a nomination of a wider tree. Please just concentrate on the harmonization aspect for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Category:Northern Irish Queen's Counsel to Category:Queen's Counsel from Northern Ireland – C2C: per convention of Category:People from Northern Ireland. Please retain the old title as a {{category redirect}} BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I think the more relevant convention is that of Category:Queen's Counsel which use the current style. Number 57 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Number 57: the demonym-phrase overrules the occupational category convention, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_13. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic london: I can't really respond in detail right now as don't have laptop access, but in summary I believe the idea that we shouldn't use the phrase Northern Irish is a fringe POV pushed by some Irish nationalists that should not have gained any credence on Wikipedia. Both of the discussions you linked to were proposals from the notorious editor Vintagekits, who was indef blocked years ago due to his unacceptable behaviour (and just to clarify, I am not putting BHG in the same category as Vintagekits et al.). Number 57 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Number 57: well, here's an interesting situation. IMHO C2C still permits speedy renaming, because there is a convention that is well defined and overwhelmingly used within the hierarchy. Only C2D mentions "uncontroversial"; C2C doesn't. But if you still object and would prefer a full CfD, then let's go that way. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes please (whilst I appreciate there is a naming convention on the Northern Ireland side, there is also one on the Queen's Counsel side, and I think it might be worth raising the Northern Irish issue again for a more reasoned discussion now that some of the more combative editors in that field are no longer with us). And I'm not sure what you're saying – even if there are objections, the category should still be moved if it's clear there is a well-defined convention? That's not my experience (I recall a couple of C2C nominations I made here that were objected to despite conventions being in place). Cheers, Number 57 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I'm saying that the wording above allows a well-defined convention to be applied speedily even if there are objections. Perhaps the others that you referred to were not processed speedily because there was some ambiguity. In this case, although there is a clash of two conventions, it is clear which one should override the other. However, I'm not going to push it. – Fayenatic London 06:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • A good compromise which I would favour that I wish would get more attention would be "Northern Ireland FOOs". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Good Olfactory's proposal seems to be the best solution for the whole category tree, but in that case we'd need to rediscuss Category:Northern Irish people. Should we do so? Absolutely. But is there someone willing to prepare a nomination? --PanchoS (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sigh.
                    1. Number 57's comments about the January 2009 CFR which created this convention are disappointing. At least 13 editors !voted in that discussion, and its outcome (by a clear margin) has been stable for 7 years .. so whatever anyone's view of the rest of the activities of the long-since-banned Vintagekits, his proposal in this case has been shown to have a durable consensus.
                      Similarly, the July 2009 CFR was approved with zero opposes. I find it rather sad to see the concerns of Irish editors being dismissed as "fringe" ... and BTW, AFAICS, only 1 out of 6 editors in the July 2009 discussion was Irish.
                    2. If Number 57 objects to the convention applied to dozens of categories, then the way to raise that issue is to open a group CFR to rename all the effected categories, rather than to obstruct the harmomisation of a lone outlier. If and when the convention is changed, then this category can be changed along with it ... but until then, the objection serves no useful purpose. It just maintains an outlier, whose non-std format impedes categorisation.
                    3. Same for Good Olfactory's proposal for a "Northern Ireland fooers" format. . Whatever the merits of that idea (I'm not persuaded so far), it would need a group CFR. This isn't the place to pursue it.
                    4. In the meantime, please can this speedy just proceed? It won't prejudice any future proposal to change the convention, so I can see no gain to anyone from leaving this outlier uncorrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the Northern Ireland category tree, without prejudice to a future discussion about the tree format of Category:People from Northern Ireland as a whole. It clearly qualified for speedy. But I do think that maybe the entire tree format could be re-considered. (As I mentioned above, I would prefer "Northern Ireland FOOs", but could also go with "Northern Irish FOOs". "FOOs from Northern Ireland" is somewhat of a backwards anomaly, as far as the entire nationality tree is concerned.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Good Ol’factory to match the rest of the category tree Category:People from Northern Ireland, without prejudice to any wider discussion about the convention. The "fooers from Northern Ireland" format has been stable for 8 years since agreed by consensus at CFRJanuary 2009 and CFR July 2009. Whatever the merits of any other formats which may be agreed in the future, there is no benefit in keeping this one as an outlier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the person who opposed the speedy, I accept that this is likely to go through anyway, so I am not going to oppose. However, I hope that consideration will now be given to rectifying the category situation for Northern Irish people. Number 57 16:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: Such a consideration can be given, but only if a nomination is started by someone. You could start one at any stage, there's probably not a need for this discussion to be closed first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Barristers are qualified to practise law only in one of the three UK jurisdictions. Apart from appearances in the Supreme Court. QCs of the Northern Ireland Bar will only practise and be able to practise in Northern Ireland. Conversely, QCs appointed frome the English (and Welsh) bar would not be able to practise in Northern Ireland. The possibility of a barrister from Northern Ireland studying law in and English university and then practising as a member of one of the four English Inns of Court must exist. Such a person would be appointed as an English QC. I accept the present name is an outlier, but the solution proposed is unsatisfactory. Suggest Category:Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland]]. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How does making the cat name pattern match another parent (an irrelevance anyway - MediaWiki just doesn't work that way) improve matters, when it would equally break the pattern for the much more relevant category of Category:British Queen's Counsel [sic]?
Also, these are not "from" NI, even if they might be "of" NI. The only NI barrister I know personally (and who no doubt has silky aspirations) is from London. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no such thing as "Northern Irish". This slavish adherance to demonyms must be stopped as it reults in inaccurate names like the current one. Down with this sort of thing I say. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: the Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you, as do a number of other commonly used dictionaries. "Northern Irish" is a thing, and is an accepted adjective or noun. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would not be the majority opinion on thw WikiIreland project. It is a lazy way of speaking that manages to insult both communities simulataniously. Each would view itself as British or as Irish as apporopriate; neither would self-identify as Northern Irish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WikiProject Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer ? I agree that "Northern Irish" as a demonym is a problem, but no-one is suggesting that as an interpretation. The point is that they're qualified to work in the courts of Northern Ireland, not that they are QCs of personal NI/Ulster/Six Counties origin. There is some overlap in the wording, but none intended in the meaning here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I don't think that the Ireland WikiProject is the final arbiter of whether there is such a thing as "Northern Irish". It may not be preferred usage, and it may not be common usage, but those are entirely different issues as to whether it is a thing at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Northern Irish" is not a generally used term. I would replace it with "Northern Ireland." I do not know that the preposition "from" is helpful. It implies they may be outside Northern Ireland. If an article in a UK paper for example is about "plumbers from Poland," one would not expect in to be about plumbers in Poland. TFD (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Northern Ireland FOO" is the best option moving forward. It's the one that we should have adopted in the first place rather than the backwards "FOOs from Northern Ireland". Why change the format completely just for one instance when there is an alternate option available that will be more similar to the way other nationality categories are formatted? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we generally avoid the term "Northern Irish", the reasons are complex, but there is no good reason to make this an exception to the general avoidance of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the usage in a BBC article: "Northern Ireland MPs" but "Scottish MPs."[1] Or the Irish Times: "Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs."[2] That seems typical in reliable sources. This usage is actually common for subnational units: the London mayor, a Yorkshire MP, a Liverpool police officer. TFD (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2016 (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/2016_June_14&oldid=1140524662"