Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

April 17[edit]

Category:Solid freeform fabrication[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Solid freeform fabrication to Category:3D printing
Nominator's rationale: Highly obscure name for a technique far better known as 3D printing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2012 (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:Health care markets[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Health care markets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete Not clear on the purpose of this category, it has only one member, which is itself better classified in other places already. KarlB (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is part of a larger classification system based on JEL classification codes. Progress on this has been uneven, but all categories should be populated in due course.JQ (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment given the category was created in 2006, it doesn't look like it's going to be populated. Why not delete, and then if there are sufficient articles in the future, recreate. --KarlB (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign so far that this 1-member category has any potential for growth, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. If there is sufficient content in the future to populate it, then it can be recreated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 24 April 2012 (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:Unionism[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:British unionism. There is clear consensus that the category has to be renamed to avoid connection with organized labor. There is unsurprising conflict about what it should be renamed to, so I'm matching the article title.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Unionism to Category:Unionism (British Isles)
Nominator's rationale: There is an existing disambig page for Unionism, which is broadly used term by many social movements. Thus, this category, which is exclusively about Unionism in the British isles, should be thusly renamed. KarlB (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Scotland and WikiProject Ireland have both been notified.[1][2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to disambiguate. No strong opinion on what form of disambiguation is best, though "(British and Ireland)" seems weird to me. (Shouldn't the suggestion be "(Britain and Ireland)"?) "British Isles" is commonly used in the real world and I would not have a problem with it, but I know many users do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had meant to write "Britain and Ireland". Now corrected.
    You are right that "British Isles" is commonly used, but it is a POV term because it presupposes that Ireland is British. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the complaint about "British Isles", I just have always had the impression that it's a tad contrived or pedantic—in reverse, kind of like a Canadian complaining that U.S. nationals should not be permitted to have exclusive use of the term "American". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Canadian Embassy in Washington raise objections like this one from the Irish Embassy in London: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its usage[sic].”? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. See American_(word) for many references. Esp from latin/south America, the term 'American' is disliked. So it goes... --KarlB (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wouldn't say "yes" to the exact question asked by BHG; I think the Canadian government regards the issue as pedantic and contrived. Some other governments in the Americas do not, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how about Category:British Unionism (I note that British Unionism is the name of the parent article)? --Mais oui! (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably a good option. It describes the unionism in relation to Britain, which seems reasonably accurate, and doesn't introduce unnecessary POV terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Category:British unionism is the best of the options I have seen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The category Category:Unionism has described itself as "Articles and sub-categories relating to Unionism in the British Isles" since 2006, which is why I made the nomination I did. BHG is unfortunately throwing a wiki-trout in the face of this nomination because of this hated, odious word, which nonetheless appears all over the wikipedia categories, like this one Category:British Isles and about 20-25 others. Allow me to suggest the following - BHG and any other interested editors are welcome to join the fascinating discussion here: Talk:British_Isles/name_debate. As soon as the consensus on Wikipedia is to rename that article and all of the attendant categories, I would happily support a rename of this one to whatever formulation is proposed. But until then, going to war over this little category, and fighting the same fight, and working to come up with some *other* consensus name, just seems silly. If we're going to come up with a new formulation for the British Isles, I suggest it be done on the aforementioned talk page, *not* in the category renaming board. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There are several available permutations of neutral category name which resole the ambiguity identified in the nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment WP:ICANTGETCONSENSUS ONTHEARTICLERENAME SOIMGOINGTOFIGHTTHISBATTLE ONEDINKYCATEGORYATATIME. This is not 'other crap', this is a hotly contested naming dispute, which for now has settled on the term 'British Isles' within wikipedia. End of story. Consensus is the way we do things here. If you don't like the term British Isles, please bring it to the proper forum. Until then, the term should be used because of WP:COMMONNAME.--KarlB (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STUFFNEUTRALITYJUSTABUSEANYONEWHOOBJECTS. There are plenty of ways to name this category without introducing the contested term. Adopting the name of the head article is one of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HEYYOUTWOQUITINSULTINGEACHOTHERWITHFANCIFULREDLINKEDSHORTCUTS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSOKAYITHINKWEGOTASOLUTIONTOTHISONE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ok that made me laugh. cheers. but to the point, I think British is not sufficient, because the category is also about unionism in Ireland (i.e. *all* of Ireland) and Scotland as well. --KarlB (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the article is at British unionism, lower case u. Tim! (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:British unionism as British unionism is the name of the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:British unionism per User:Bduke and standard practice. Ben MacDui 07:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to British unionism since the article is at British unionism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brazil would also object to us calling it the United States becaue they are the United States of Brazil, and thus if Brazilians had their way we would have to rename to categories like Category:Brazilian emigrants to the United States of the North.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose and comment: This doesn't really affect the British Isles per se (e.g. unionism has never really been an issue on the Isle of Man or Channel Islands and is less of an issue affecting the southern portion of Ireland after 1922). It is an inherently political concept and relates directly to the United Kingdom and not the archipelago in which the UK is located. Therefore, I suggest Category:Unionism in the United Kingdom. "British unionism" feels wrong because, more-often-than-not, what is being referred to is Irish unionism and Scottish unionism and Irish unionists and Scottish unionists. This is also more in line with the (true) main articles: Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland. Indeed, I would suggest that the British unionism article be renamed Unionism in the United Kingdom in line with these. --RA (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree with RA's explanation of why "British Isles" is inappropriate. Unionism is an issue only in Britain and Ireland, not in the rest of the so-called "British Isles". However, "United Kingdom" doesn't quite work either, because it is not solely an issue confined to the current boundaries of the United Kingdom; there was a Unionist majority on Rathmines Urban District Council until it was abolished in 1930, and if/when Scotland gains independence I'm sure that Unionism will continue to be some sort of political force within an independent Scotland.
    It seems to me that this is one of the rare occasions when the adjective "British" is actually appropriate, because a distinguishing feature of such Unionism it that accepts the political concept of "Britishness". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That crossed my mind too. My thinking was that "unionism", regardless of whether it was "in" the United Kingdom at any given time, is always at least "in" relation to the United Kingdom i.e. the Rathmines unionism was a desire for all of Ireland to remain "in" the United Kingdom (even after it had left). --RA (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RA explains it well. Since Unionism is a political concept, it fits better to refer to the political entities involved, such as Ireland or Scotland or the United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Unionism in UK doesn't work either, since all of Ireland is included, including the southern part, especially before after 1922. That's why a geographic works better in this case, rather than more ambiguous political terms which refer to shifting boundaries and identies; British Isles has the virtue of being static and clear, and capturing the landmass of all of the areas where this sentiment has been expressed. --KarlB (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    note: corrected word use error in the above. --KarlB (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The before 1922 point is a bit silly, because all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and the issue at stake in unionism is the desire to become or remain part of the United Kingdom, whatever its current boundaries.
    As noted above, "British Isles" includes areas where Unionism has never been an issue, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, so it is geographically inaccurate in addition to being POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Before 1922, all of Ireland was in the UK. Thus "in the United Kingdom". --RA (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. The name UK was only official around 1800, but at least one of the articles refers to the acts of Union 1707, at which point the name was 'Great Britain'. And while unionism today may indeed refer to a desire to remain part of UK, in the past it may have referred to whatever entity was in charge (i.e. Great Britain, etc). Unionism (and nationalism) in Ireland also has deep roots: from Irish home rule movement: "The movement drew upon a legacy of patriotic thought that dated back at least to the late 17th century." - if there was patriotic thought, there would have also been its inverse. One of the other articles in this category is about the Crown of Ireland Act 1542, so clearly this stuff has a long history, and predates the formation of the UK. As to your point on the Isles, I hate to correct you but you may be wrong there as well: Scotland's Northern Isles Might Stay With The UK If Scotland Breaks Away: Report - there are also murmurs for greater independence in Isle of Man and Guernsey, so there are likely to be 'unionist' sentiments on these islands as well Call for greater distance from UK for Channel Islands. I feel like we're bending over backwards to avoid a reasonable geographic term, already used by consensus in Wikipedia, when it makes most sense (like talking about 'European history' or 'SE Asian history'). I do agree with RA, Unionism is certainly a political concept, but because it endures over so many centuries and governments, a geographic descriptor may be the most clear way to capture the contents of this category. And I'm quite happy to see RA suggest my original formulation Category:Unionism (British Isles) --KarlB (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The crown dependencies will never have "unionist" movements - since they were never part of the "Union" in the first place. The general consensus on many "British Isles" debates is to use refer to the smallest relevant area. So if we are to use a geographic area, this should be "Great Britain and Ireland". If we are to use a geopolitical area, we could select Category:Unionism (United Kingdom). --HighKing (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. The choice between "United Kingdom" and "British Isles" is quite simple.
    United Kingdom is accurate in geographical scope, because the issues here relate solely to the United Kingdom and to its predecessor and successor states. In some cases, there will be an anachronism, but it is a minor anachronism because the Kingdom of Great Britain was referred to contemporaneously as the "united Kingdom" (see article II, II, IV etc of 107 Articles of Union . It is therefore no more than an anchronism of the capitalisation of one letter.
    OTOH, British Isles is inaccurate in geographical scope, and unnecessarily introduces a entirely avoidable political view of geography. There is currently a consensus to use British Isles as a geographical term, but that does not mean that it is appropriate to extend its use to political topics where it is demonstrably inaccurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, using it in this context (Unionism in the British Isles) attempts to transform usage beyond geographical into geopolitical, and for no obvious reason. It's bad practice and sloppy misuse of a term. --HighKing (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    calling the use of the term 'British Isles' sloppy is uncalled for. Perhaps you'd consider this book title, which addresses many of the concerns in this discussion, to be 'sloppy'? A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles, C1750-c1850. Another work on exactly this subject used the term 9 times, like this: "As the Union was the cornerstone of a state based on the incorporation of the whole of the British Isles [...] vital to the formulation of a new 'nationality' - British - not merely English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish."p.93 Defenders of the Union: A Survey of British and Irish Unionism Since 1801 By David George Boyce, Alan O'Day. In addition, the title of the book points out why 'British Unionism' is not sufficient; because it excludes Irish actors, which as BHG is fond of pointing out, are not British. So to get it right, it would probably have to be Category:Unionism (British and Irish and Scottish and Welsh and English. Another useful quote can be found here: "The passage in 1800 of the Act of Union, which in 1801 inaugurated the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, brought an unprecedented constitutional clarity to the government of the British Isles and can be seen as the culmination of a thousand-year process of political evolution that led to the creation of a unified 'British' state." Nationhood and Identity: The British State Since 1800, David Powell. In other words, while our POV editors decry the use of this term, sources upon which wikipedia relies continue to use it, and use it to describe politics, unionism, nationalism, and many other things that happen in the archipelago. BHG's initial comment was telling - she didn't object to the term because it was inaccurate, she objected to it because it just rubbed her and others the wrong way. Now there is an attempt to backpedal and justify that 'United Kingdom' is sufficient to explain complex issues of identity and nationalism that predate the UK and include countries which are not part of the UK. Unfortunately, if you start drawing venn diagrams, you'll soon find that any of the other formulations besides the archipelago proposed to date do *not* capture the extent of articles currently classified, nor the potential for this category in the future.--KarlB (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for the term "British Isles" to be used in geopolitical contexts in the past (downright common actually), or even used totum pro parte for Britain or United Kingdom or Britain and Ireland, up to relatively modern times. But times seem to have changed. Usage of the term British Isles in such a context is rarely seen today. The book you linked to above published in 1997, for example, makes no mention of any crown dependencies. There are far more books on Unionism that make no mention of British Isles in their title. Even the quotes you've used above support the contention of totum pro parte usage - for example brought an unprecedented constitutional clarity to the government of the British Isles. Simply wrong. Let's not propagate mistakes like that into WP. --HighKing (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Karl.brown, Venn diagrams or no Venn diagrams, the facts are simple. 1) The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kindom, has never been part of the United Kingdom, and AFAICS there has been no significant pressure from unionists to make it a part of the United Kingdom. 2) The Isle of Man is part of the so-called "British Isles".
    So why do you want to drag the Isle of Man into this by using "British Isles", when there are several simple formulations such as "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom" which cover all of the relevant territory, and only the relevant territory? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Karl.brown, for some reason I read "Unionism in the British Isles" as the first proposal. I proposed the above as stab at compromise thinking it hadn't been discussed already. I've struck it now since it has been discussed.
    I hope you don't mind me saying but your comment above is not convicing. It mixes, unionism with nationalism, islands that are a part of the UK with islands that are not a part the UK, a narrative past with speculation about the future, and the quotes you cite are not about unionism.
    You do have an argument - but you are over playing it IMO. And because of that, you have convinced me further that the correct context is "United Kingdom" (something the term specifically relates to) and not "British Isles". --RA (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people really want to duke out how this should be named they should go to the article talk page. For now we should have the category match the article name, and if they rename the article we can rename the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment thanks, though to be realistic the real 'header' pages are actually 3, as someone mentioned above British unionism, Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland. --KarlB (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that "Unionism (British Isles)" would be incorrect, and to me "British unionism" sounds bizarre, with heavy overtones of the British Union of Fascists. Unionism is a political concept, and to mean anything it needs to have a particular political aim. Unionism in Scotland aims to keep Scotland in the Union, whereas Unionism in Ireland aims to keep some (previously all) of Ireland in it. Unionism in England was much the same as Irish Unionism and is now a spent force. There are few swing voters in England for whom the future of Northern Ireland is an issue now. On the whole, the status quo seems to me to be more liveable with than any of the alternatives suggested so far. No other kinds of Unionists seem to be complaining about it. Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename to something. Clearly the existing name is inappropriate, considering the disambiguation page. Since the current head article is "British unionism", it appears to be the most appropriate title, though "Unionism (British Isles)" works quite well as well. "Unionism (Ireland and Britain/Britain and Ireland)" works less well, since the other island is called "Great Britain" (as opposed to "little Britain", or Brittany). I suppose you could use "Unionism (British archipelago)". 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I updated the header in the category to list British unionism, Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland as the three lead articles for this category (especially since the British unionism article itself does not capture the sentiments expressed by unionists in Ireland). Also, for more evidence on why Unionism (United Kingdom) is insufficient, take a look at this: Reform Groups:Ireland for a new generation - this is a group based in RoI, but their goals are "Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations." and promoting rejoining the commonwealth - are these 'unionist' sentiments? You'd really have to ask them, there is a spectrum and continuum here. There is a recent book which may also be of use: "Unionism in Modern Ireland: New Perspectives on Politics and Culture [Hardcover]. Richard English (Editor), Graham Walker (Editor)". So just using 'United Kingdom' to describe activities and feelings that are going on within RoI today is inaccurate. Finally, even BHG proposed that 'British' was a perfectly acceptable term here, but for some reason is opposed to the addition of the word 'Isles' to the end.--KarlB (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully accept that "British" is an appropriate adjective to apply to Unionism, a political doctrine which seeks political unity of Great Britain and/or unity of Ireland with Great Britain.
    I do not accept that "British" is an NPOV adjective to apply in a geographical or political sense to the Island of Ireland, for reasons set out length elsewhere.
    I wondered how long it would take you to find Reform Groups:Ireland for a new generation. They are a tiny fringe outfit, but even if we take them seriously, look at what their aim is: unity (or at least a closer relationship) with The United Kingdom. Not unity with France or Japan or Tonga, but The United Kingdom. So "Unionism (United Kingdom)" includes them very neatly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident that with all of your experience here you know that wikipedia is not about 'whether we take them seriously', there is an article about them and thus the community considers them to be notable, that is all. I personally have no feelings about them, and I'd suggest that you keep your own feelings about them out of this debate, as they are quite irrelevant. As per your other points, I also found an editor who disagrees with you:
    BrownHairedGirl, a few days ago: "However, "United Kingdom" doesn't quite work either, because it is not solely an issue confined to the current boundaries of the United Kingdom; there was a Unionist majority on Rathmines Urban District Council until it was abolished in 1930, and if/when Scotland gains independence I'm sure that Unionism will continue to be some sort of political force within an independent Scotland."
    So, if "United Kingdom" won't work, because it will apply to Ireland and (eventually independent?) Scotland, and "British" won't work because it's "an NPOV adjective to apply in a geographical or political sense to the Island of Ireland, for reasons set out length elsewhere.", then what will work? Do you really think that when Ireland signed the Crown of Ireland Act 1542, it was about the "United Kingdom", or "British" identity? The ideas of union in the history of the British isles are much more complex than a black and white picture or a particular set of positions held by actors today. You're taking a revisionist, modern perspective on this naming discussion, instead of choosing something that is neutral and inclusive. And yes, the crown dependencies are not part of the UK, that is why I brought them up. There are currently independence movements in almost all of them, and if these debates come to a head, there may be articles about people on those islands who oppose independence - calling those sentiments unionist is reasonable.--KarlB (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have hoped that you would have read WP:WEIGHT, which cautions against giving undue weight to fringe views, and explicitly warns that "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Reform Groups:Ireland for a new generation is just that: a tiny minority. That's why I question whether we should be paying hem any attention in the context of this discussion.
    As to my previous comment, thank you for reminding me of it. Having looked at the issue further, I reckon that my earlier objection to it on those grounds was mistaken, because as I noted more recently all the Unionists involved -- even those in Rathmines -- seek to be part of the United Kingdom. They either want to stay there (as with current Ulster Unionists), to join it (as with Irish Unionists pre 1801), or to rejoin it (as with the fringe "Reform Groups" or any remaining Scottish Unionists if that country becomes independent in 2015).
    As to the Crown of Ireland Act 1542, the use of the term "unionism" in respect of that Act is anachronism. The 1542 Act is not mentioned in either Unionism in Ireland or British unionism, and the inclusion of the 1542 act in the category is a matter of navigational convenience, reflecting the fact that WP:CAT#Overview, categories are a navigational device. Whether it should be included is a question best addressed elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read the intro to Unionism in Ireland: "Unionism in Ireland is an ideology that favours the continuation of some form of political union between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain. Since the independence of the Irish Free State, which is now the Republic of Ireland, unionism has focused on preserving the place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom." In other words, since the creation of RoI, unionism in Ireland has become about keeping NI within the UK - no arguments there. (though read this for a different unionist view, which is much more 'British Isles wide' in its scope and meaning: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/docs/vanguard72.htm). But to state that the focus of unionism before then (and to group all of the parties across all the Isles and their various views under the banner) was "they just wanted to join the UK" is oversimplification in the extreme, and does not become you - the types of union, their forms, functions, and purpose aspired for by all of the different actors do not all converge on a single idea: the modern nation-state of the United Kingdom. Finally, by naming it with (United Kingdom), we are going against the convention in this field, and the multiple sources cited, whereby Unionism is not categorized by what it is about, but rather by where the actors are from. We have Irish Unionism, Ulster Unionism, British Unionism, Scottish Unionism, Welsh Unionism, which each have their reasons and arguments. This is why I feel an umbrella geographic term, rather than a political term, would make more sense here, as this category covers unionism as an evolving concept in this area of the world, and not just a particular set of unionist arguments trending today. I suppose Category:Unionism (Great Britain and Ireland) might be another, more wordy, option, although the lack of Scotland may bug some, and it also has a bit of historicism to it, in that Great Britain itself did not exist until 1707 or so. It's funny that you call the categorization of the 1542 act an anachronism, since your use of 'United Kingdom' is also, of course, an anachronism - allow me to remind again that the history of Unionism (whether it was called that or not is not that relevant, it is the desire for union that is important) in the British isles goes back way further than 1801, and before 1707.--KarlB (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Karl, I am historian, so I too could write screeds on history, and I have long since read the article Unionism in Ireland. But what we are trying to do here is devise a brief title for a navigational device rather than spout verbiage, so I deliberately simplified as much as possible. The varieties of closer relationship sought were many, but they led in 1801 to the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Our objective here is to find a succinct category name to assist navigation, not to write a thesis on the history of unionism.
    If you want an purely geographic term to describe where the actors are from, the relevant term is "Britain and Ireland". "Great Britain" is a newer term, but dates back at least to 1604, not 1707. (Britain or Great Britain did of course exist long before 1604, at least since the place became an island about 8,000 years ago ... but for navigational device, we use the most common name for it which will be understood by our readers).
    If you want a political term, use "United Kingdom", because it all crystallised in the UK.
    If you want a term to describe the unionist vision of that national identity which unionism sought to construct, use "British". Outside of the island of Great Britain, it is a POV term, but since it a unionist POV term, it is accurate in this context.
    OTOH, "British Isles" does not describe where the actors are from, because it includes places where unionism has never been a serious force. Your continued advocacy of a POV term which is also geographically inaccurate is becoming silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should just rename it Category:Unionism and related movements going back to Dermod MacMurrough in the island of Britain also known as Great Britain and the island of Ireland which we will inaccurately call the British Isles because Karl likes the term :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your continued description of 'British isles' as a POV term is itself POV, BHG. You yourself said there is consensus to use the term to describe a geographic area, and that is how I am proposing it be used, so please stop with the POV shots across the bow. Until Wikipedia consensus changes its tune, 'British isles' is not POV; if you call it POV, that is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Secondly, I have provided multiple sources, by Irish, Scottish, and English authors, that indeed use the term 'British isles' to refer to the area where this form of unionism has been an issue, and I'm not going to bore you by providing more. So this is not my own little invention or crusade, real historians have actually used this "geographically inaccurate" term, to discuss the issue at hand, so I'd suggest you take up your argument with them. My assumption is, they were also willing to accept a small inaccuracy, in that perhaps the unionist movements of Jersey were not boiling over, but it was a convenient, and understandable, shorthand. So we're left with many choices, none of them perfect. But you calling my proposal POV or inaccurate is unfair; it's no more inaccurate than stating that unionists are all 'British' (when, for example, one of the important recent pieces of scholarship on this issue explicitly spoke of 'British and Irish Unionism'), or even that they were all driving for 'British' national identity (provably false), and no more inaccurate than the gross simplification that since UK is the default/biggest union, that all the 'unionists' were all leading towards that the whole time, after all. Without making it personal, let's just accept that we disagree on the most clear way to categorize this; I think both of us have said enough, and I'm done...--KarlB (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Unionism in United Kingdom. Unionism is the converse of Nationalism, which seeks to fragment UK. It is not necessary to use "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland", because unionism has not been an issue in the Republic of Irleaqnd since its creation in 1922. Before that, UK included the whole of Ireland. It is mainly a live political issue in Northern Ireland. It has been to some extent in Scotland, but mainly among Scottish Presbyterians supporting their Ulster co-religionists. (Note I am English). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment per this: "unionism has not been an issue in the Republic of Ireland since its creation in 1922", I'd just point to this: Reform_Movement_(Ireland). BHG has called this a fringe group, which it may indeed be, but it does exist. --KarlB (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Reform Movement is not quite "unionist". They are fringe, but notable in that they lobby for the "British" tradition in the Republic of Ireland. However, to use "unionist" with regard to Reform Movement would be inaccurate. They don't have an aim, for example, for the Republic of Ireland to rejoin the United Kingdom. They belong to a political tradition in southern Ireland that before 1922 would have been "unionist" but to call them "unionist" today would be inaccurate (even a slur). --RA (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Well, you just made my point for me :) I was going to say: "It all depends on how you are defining 'unionist' - by today's standards, or by historical standards?", and then you went and made the same point. So, what is this category about? A specific political movement today? Or a general movement towards greater political unity within the isles over the past 500 years of history, with many possible forms permitted? The current category membership suggests the latter. Reform Movement (Ireland) has been in Category:Unionism since as long as it's existed, including many edits by yourself (RA) - the category was never challenged/removed AFAIK. If they're not valid members of the category, why didn't you remove them? As I've mentioned before, the history of unionism in the Isles is rich and varied, and even though today it tends to mean one thing (i.e. keeping NI and Scotland part of the UK), historically it has meant other things - i.e. pursuit of some form of political connection between the isles. What Reform is pushing for (i.e. British citizenship, joining the commonwealth, etc) are all forms of unionism, even if we may not label them in that way, and follows very much in the general tradition - just read their blog posts, you will see they tie themselves to previous unionist movements/thinking in RoI. I don't want to overplay this particular point; if these guys didn't exist I'd still make the same arguments, for the same reason - the venn diagrams on 'United Kingdom' and 'British' just don't capture the diversity. --KarlB (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many things in the category that are only tangental to unionism: Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border. Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, Irish Home Rule Movement, to give just some examples. Reform Movement (Ireland) is also relevant to unionism. That does not make the the Reform Movement unionist, only relevant to it.
    "...a general movement towards greater political unity within the isles over the past 500 years of history, with many possible forms permitted?" That is not unionism. Like the Reform Movement organisation, it is relevant to it. But that is not unionism. Unionism has a very narrow and specific definition (OED):

    a person, especially a member of a Northern Ireland political party, who is in favour of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
    historical a member of a British political party formed in 1886 which supported maintenance of the parliamentary union between Great Britain and Ireland.

    In recent times, unionism has come to refer to a similar political stand-point towards the union in Scotland too. But that is, relatively speaking, quite new. So, because of the intertwined nature of the two ("unionism" and "United Kingdom"), Unionism (United Kingdom) is a superior option. --RA (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This to me is the central crux of the debate. Are we defining Unionism (and this category) according to today's OED, or according to how scholars who study this field use the term - for example, applying it to Scots in 1700, or Irish in 1798. Per your point above, I can send you many references of how unionism was applied to sentiments in Scotland and England. Here is one describing a king from 1603 as 'unionist': [3] - but a perusal of other literature will demonstrate my point - scholars describe Scottish Unionism, Irish Unionism, Ulster Unionism, Southern Unionism; I'm sorry but the limited OED definition given above does not begin to capture the many ways in which this term is used by scholars in this field. --KarlB (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Karl, I get the impression that you think that you are dealing with editors who don't know the history. If so, that is grievously wrong in my case, and from my experience of watching RA's contributions over the years, it is wrong in his case too.
    Sorry if my impression is misplaced, but however you intended it, your paragraph of potted history comes across as a bit patronising, and -- crucially -- of little relevance. Yes, of course the term "unionism" has been used in many ways, and if it was of any relevance I could several more flavours of unionism to your list. However, it's not relevant, because what we need to do here is to choose one overarching term which encompasses the full scope of unionism in these two islands. As RA says, "unionism" and "United Kingdom" combines the two relevant concepts which will allow the reader to identify the scope of the category, without adding any POV.
    Personally, I think that British Unionism has a slight edge in simplicity of construction, but Category:Unionism (United Kingdom) would also do fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to be patronising, and I wasn't implying that eds didn't know history; I was implying there is a disagreement on the scope of the category, which may explain the divide between our positions. You and RA (and others) seem to suggest that this category should be about Unionism as it's defined today in the OED, and then everything else that happens to be in the category is just tangential to it (compare Category:Liberalism in the United States for a broader historical category). My feeling (which came from reading the history, and perusing the contents) is that Unionism in the Isles is a trend that has manifested itself in many ways over the centuries, and that the category captures all of that as a continuous strain of thought, which leads to today's definition but isn't constrained by it. Again, I'm not sure why my description of the diversity of approaches of Unionism isn't germane here, unless it is your position that the category is *only* for unionism today, and isn't meant to capture historical attitudes and approaches.--KarlB (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any significant disagreement on the scope of the category. It contains a few pages which I regard as a poor fit, but those are marginal points.
    My concern is simply that a lengthy discussion of the historical development of the various flavours of unionism and its antecedents is not going to get us any nearer to the goal of finding a succinct category name which assists readers to navigate between related articles. What we need here is a broad term which will be recognisable to readers, and one which reflects current usage is more likely to be recognisable than something designed to reflect all that one editor has learnt in a few hours reading Wikipedia's coverage of a series of political discourses panning several centuries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to category:British Unionism as per Mais Oui and BHG. Fmph (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/comment I oppose the use of "British Isles" because of the British Isles naming dispute, because of the inescapable and inbuilt POV of it, and because using "British Isles" incorrectly includes the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, as stated above. I offer no opinion on whether the category needs some other new name as I have no time to consider the question. — O'Dea (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose the oppose: I oppose the above comment as POV. A naming dispute does not make a term POV (see American_(word)#Political_and_cultural_views)--KarlB (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, opposing a POV term is a POV position? Puh-leeze. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose the opposition of the opposition If you imagine that I have the slightest intention of reading the 4,932-word American_(word) article to find out what you are thinking, then you have another think coming, Charlie B. Do not be absurd. I hereby declare this debate resolved and closed (justification) and await the arrival of the man with the keys to affix the padlock so we can all retire to a house of refreshment. — O'Dea (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    hehe. at least you have a sense of humor. I didn't put the full link sorry: American_(word)#Political_and_cultural_views. The point is, just because some people don't like a word, does not make the use of that word POV - American being a case in point. In fact, calling it POV (as you and BHG continue to do) is therefore POV, especially given wiki-consensus to date is use of "British isles" is acceptable in a geographic sense. if you want to continue arguing this point, please go to the other discussion page on the naming dispute and duke it out there.--KarlB (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What about Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland). Seems British Isles is just too dirty a word, but I still believe a geographical term is better in this instance because of the diversity of ways in which Unionism is used in describing various movements in the Isles. Anyone willing to go for that? --KarlB (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the idea I suggested at the outset. Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) is no longer my first choice, but I would accept it as a compromise if it lets us draw this tedious discussion to a close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    support rename to Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) to end this...--KarlB (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: On the face of it, Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) is about the Union between Britain and Ireland, whereas Unionism in Scotland is about the Union between Scotland and England and Wales. Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) is misleading if the category is to go on including both of these forms of Unionism. May I suggest that the way forward is to focus on the meaning of the word Unionism in this context, rather than a geographical area? Something like Category:Unionism (Acts of Union) should escape the main problems which have come up. Moonraker (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment These are the main ones that keep being proposed:
Category name Arguments for Arguments against
British Unionism Unionism is about 'British' identity; Some feel it does not exclude Irish/Scottish unionists as they see themselves as both Irish/Scottish and British. One of the head articles is British unionism Some feel it excludes Irish/Scottish unionists: A sample ref that differentiates between British and Irish unionism. on Irish unionism Unionism is *not* just about British identity. There are two other head articles.
Unionism (British Isles) Title of the category for 6 years has been Articles and sub-categories relating to Unionism in the British Isles, so this seems like the consensus description of the cat. Used in dozens of books on the subject. Catch-all for the islands. Wikipedia consensus is use of this term is acceptable as a geographic descriptor. Some small islands that are part of 'British Isles' do not have documented unionist movements (e.g. Channel Islands), so it is a geographic inaccuracy. It applies the label "British" to Ireland, which some disagree with. The fact that the hatnote used 'British isles' may just mean no-one scrutinized it over 6 years.
Unionism (United Kingdom) The long term goal of all unionism is the United Kingdom; Unionism today is about union *with* the United Kingdom The goal of all unionists has been for some degree of political integration with or within the state currently known as the "United Kingdom", or its predecessor states (the united Kingdom of Great Britain, and before that the Kingdom of England, which de facto include Wales). Historical anachronism; unionism existed long before the UK did, and still exists outside of the UK. Goal of unionists is not uniformly "join the UK", but much more varied. Category should contain historical and modern notions of unionism.
Unionism in the United Kingdom The long term goal of all unionism is the United Kingdom; Unionism today is about Union *with* the United Kingdom. The goal of all unionists has been for some degree of political integration with or within the state currently known as the "United Kingdom", or its predecessor states (the united Kingdom of Great Britain, and before that the Kingdom of England, which de facto include Wales). Historical anachronism; unionism existed long before the UK did, and still exists outside of the UK. Goal of unionists is not uniformly "join the UK", but much more varied. Category should contain historical and modern notions of unionism.
Unionism (Acts of Union) avoids geography completely geographically neutral, and focuses on 2 government acts (Acts of Union), as opposed to a long-term political movement.
Unionism (Britain and Ireland) captures full geography, including Scotland (which is part of Britain) May seem to be only about the Britain/Ireland union, could be seen to exclude the union of England/Scotland (forming Great Britain).
Unionism (Great Britain and Ireland) captures full geography, including Scotland (which is def part of Great Britain) May seem to be only about the Britain/Ireland union, could be seen to exclude the union of England/Scotland (forming Great Britain).

Any additional votes? Please feel free to modify the table above, adding pro/con arguments as you see fit. --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Karl, if you are going to make a table like that, it should be a neutral summary of the arguments rather than attempt to summarise your views. Your table gives undue prominence to your own views, and amounts to a warped summary of the debate. A few exanples from what could a long long list:
    1. The fact that the categ hatnote has included the term "British Isles" does not mean that there is a consensus for it. It may also mean that the hatnote has never been scrutinised.
    2. Your comment that "Some people don't like 'British Isles' on principle" misrepresents the opposition to that term; it it is not a matter of "like" or "dislike", but of the fact that it applies the label "British" to Ireland, even tho the dominant political strand in Ireland has never accepted that adjective, and spent centuries contesting it militarily and politically.
    3. Your comment 'British Isles' is a "slight geographic inaccuracy" is an attempt to downplay the central flaw in your verbose advocacy of that label. It is a geographic inaccuracy, without qualification, because it includes areas where Unionism is not an issue.
    4. Your comment that the goal of unionists is not uniformly "join the UK", but much more varied is a grotesquely misleading attempt to muddy the waters. The goal of all unionists has been for some degree of political integration with or within the state currently known as the "United Kingdom", or its predecessor states (the united Kingdom of Great Britain, and before that the Kingdom of England, which de facto include Wales).
    I am not going to edit the table, because that will simply lead to a long series of unstable versions, which won't help discussion. I am sorry to say that discussion is going nowhere, and AFAICS most of the reason for that has been Karl appears to have been approaching the topic for the first time and splurging out the latest factoids which he has read. This is not quite a Randy in Boise situation, but it is an example of how an enthusiastic and thoroughly well-intentioned newcomer to a topic can impede consensus formation by being insufficiently versed in the historical and political complexities of the topic. Digging out a few googled references and saying "look what the sources say!" is a thoroughly useless approach to a meta-topic such as this, where there are thousands of deeply scholarly works approaching the topic from a variety of national, political, and historiographical perspectives. It all reminds of the Hospitals in Ireland CfD earlier this month, where Karl enthusiastically expounded his view at greater length, before eventually announcing that "or lack of will to fight, I hereby withdraw this nomination" and only then posting at WT:IE to try clarify his understanding of the status quo.
    I am quite sure that if this topic had been left to British and Irish editors to resolve, it would have been resolved quite easily. But at this point, it's a "no consenus" swamp. This discussion would be best closed now, and the issue reopened at some later date. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to update the table with your suggestions, and welcome you to make further edits to summarize this discussion. I agree the original table was a bit slanted, but it's not always easy to neutrally summarize, which is why I asked others to make edits as well.
    Also I'm sorry that you have found this discussion tedious, while I have found it educational. In the future, you are of course welcome to not join such discussions, or simply vote and walk away as others have done - I don't want you to feel obligated to educate me! Also I do apologize for not being sufficiently versed in the historical and political complexities of the topic, as you clearly are, though I'm not sure if that suggests one should not edit or suggest changes in areas where one is not a professional (if so, there are some cats on Healthcare and software you'd best stay away from...)? In any case, when a veteran editor like RA makes a statement like "In recent times, unionism has come to refer to a similar political stand-point towards the union in Scotland too. But that is, relatively speaking, quite new.", I guess this newbie editor has an instinct to point out the fallacy of that statement, unless "quite new" means "300 years"[4]. Also I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with Hospitals in Ireland??
    In any case, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It seems we have a growing consensus around Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) as a workable solution, so no need to close this discussion. A few more votes in that direction and we're done. --KarlB (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Karl, XfD is a mechanism for reaching consensus decisions on the fate pages. It is not a mechanism for you to fill gaps in your education. When you are approaching a complex topic for the first time, you would do a lot better to ask questions rather than to post at great length and with great forcefulness about what you have learnt in a few minutes on Google. The misconceptions you being have been posting take a lot of time for others to explain away.
    The similarity with the Hospitals in Ireland CfD is that it was another discussion where you posted at great length and with great forcefulness about something you had a limited grasp of. I am not asking you to apologise for your limited knowledge; just asking you not to expound at such length and with such stridency on the basis of that limited knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have embedded comments in blue text within the table above. Also, in a toss-up between "Unionism (Britain and Ireland)" and "Unionism (Great Britain and Ireland)", I choose the former for brevity, succinctness, and economy ("brevity is the soul of wit"). — O'Dea (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note comment by Moonraker above, which stated that "Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) is about the Union between Britain and Ireland". I've updated the table to include some of BHG's comments, and clarified the argument against 'Britain and Ireland'. I think there seems to be consensus amongst you, myself, and BHG for Category:Unionism in Britain and Ireland as a solution that is workable. --KarlB (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add people's votes above, not sure if I got them right so please edit accordingly. Note that several votes for British Unionism were made before all the correct head articles of British Unionism, Unionism in Ireland and Unionism in Scotland were linked in the category hatnote. --KarlB (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:British unionism. This does not excludes Irish/Scottish unionists as they see themselves as both Irish/Scottish and British. Also matches parent article. Snappy (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment thanks, I updated the table above with your suggestion. If you have any references that demonstrate your assertions that a) all Irish/Scottish unionists see themselves as British or b) secondary sources, when discussing Irish/Scottish Unionists, use the word 'British unionists' to describe them - please provide them (I've provided links that demonstrate that sources do differentiate) --KarlB (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no simple answer to that, and those looking for simple and clear answers to these issues here will be disappointed. To clarify my comment, I should have said that many (or most) Northern Irish unionists also see themselves as British, this from personal experience meeting many of them over a long lifetime. There are numerous sources but here is one: A 2007 survey on identity by NILT [5] showed that :"18% - Irish not British, 17 - more Irish than British, 17% - equally Irish and British, 24% - more British than Irish, 19% - British not Irish". As you can see from those results, this is a very complex issue and I doubt it will be resolved here. Snappy (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is because of those complex issues of identity that I have been pushing for a geographic (rather than political or ethnically-focused) category name. While I don't doubt that many unionists you've met see themselves as British, there may indeed be unionists who do *not* see themselves as British, either today or in the past - in other words, I think it's fair to say that having unionist sentiments is not equivalent to feeling British, even if they may overlap - which is I suppose why in many sources I've seen, they usually call out 'Scottish unionists' or 'Irish unionists', which led to my disagreement with that category name with only the word 'British'. best regards --KarlB (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no objection to abandoning the discussion, as suggested by BrownHairedGirl, as the status quo seems to have worked satisfactorily for several years. However, I still suspect a consensus might be formed around defining the nature of the unionism in question. After all, the geographical-only approaches leave the word "Unionism" in the proposed category names just as ambiguous as it is now. Category:Unionism (Acts of Union) doesn't altogether work for present-day Ulster Unionism, which is based on Northern Ireland's secession in 1922 from the Free State, but it was only my first thought. Would Category:Unionism (union under the British crown) be nearer the mark? Moonraker (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting removal of for/against table Hey Charlie B, I removed my alleged "vote" from your table as I voted for nothing. I merely objected to the use of the phrase "British Isles" and commented on removing "Great" from one of the alternatives. It is a very bad idea, as User:BrownHairedGirl has already pointed out, for you to attempt to summarise other people's positions in your table. You are not reliable as you have your own view. You have misinterpreted peoples' remarks in your table, and inviting people to change the table is an insufficient post hoc corrective. People have stated views in their own words which is the only legitimate version. Your table queers the pitch even if you don't mean to. I amended the table yesterday and now my remarks are gone. Let whichever administrator who decides on this question make his or her own mind up based on what people actually say, not on what you say they say. Allow people's remarks to speak for themselves. We do not need you to appoint yourself as our interpreter. The table is superfluous and potentially misleading. And, most importantly, Wikipedia debates are never settled by counting votes, as your table implies, but by study of the arguments; two or three very good arguments may overpower thirty less well considered arguments. I ask you to remove your distracting and illegitimate table as it does not speak for people directly and none of us has authorised you to interpret our comments and votes. — O'Dea (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close the discussion I second BrownHairedGirl's call to shut this discussion down as a "no consenus swamp". — O'Dea (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've removed the votes - and I do realize that it is not a popularity contest, I just made it for convenience to show what various people had proposed, in summary form. I removed your amendments because they were no longer relevant to the changed wording - the confusion around (Britain and Ireland) was not about whether Scotland was part of Britain, but whether it was about the Britain/Ireland union only. Those weren't my words, they were Moonraker's - you can read them above. "Category:Unionism (Britain and Ireland) is misleading if the category is to go on including both of these forms of Unionism." In any case, I made the table to help us get out of the no-consensus swamp. I do think there are workable options, I don't know why everyone just wants to throw the towel in... and as you can see from the votes (whether that matters or not) the majority seems to be for British Unionism, which I happen to disagree with but its better than no label at all.--KarlB (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Karl, the reason that editors want to abandon the discussion is that it has become an unwieldy mess, thanks to your verbose pursuit of tangents, and your failed attempts to summarise the views of others.
    As Moonraker points out, the status quo seems to have worked satisfactorily for several years, so there is no pressing need for a change. The issue can always be revisited at a latter date if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 29 April 2012 (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:American people of Jewish descent by occupation[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: Upmerge to Category:American people of Jewish descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American people of Jewish descent by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American broadcast news analysts of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American actors of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American businesspeople of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American music industry executives of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OC#EGRS, and the countless of CfDs about "American <occupation> of <nationality/ethnicity> descent", including CFD/#Category:American actors of European descent and CFD/#Category:American pornographic film actors of various ethnic descent. Nymf hideliho! 20:55, 17 April 2012 (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:Online commenting available through Facebook[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. User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Online commenting available through Facebook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I have no idea what this category means, nor what inclusion of the websites in question implies. Again, I don't think we should categorize things by web services they happen to use. What's next, websites using the facebook 'like' button? KarlB (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this category is totally unencyclopedic. Facebook online commenting has been around forever - it's not necessary to tell wikipedia readers about it. The troublemaker who created this catebgory should be banned from wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I realized the comment above is facetious; Ottawahitech actually created this category. But I suppose we can still take his vote as a 'delete' vote. FYI, there were two previous CfDs on this both ending in delete Disqus, commenting--KarlB (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2012 (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:Facebook groups[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Facebook groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Similar to yahoo groups! nominated. Which social media tools these groups use (and many of them use twitter, youtube, reddit, facebook, etc etc etc) is not encyclopedic. Even if a group 'started' on facebook, I still don't agree that this is a reasonable categorization.KarlB (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Things Bogans Like is a blog, and Wikipedia has a Category:Blogs, so as it seems possible to distinguish notable blogs from non-notable blogs, it should also be possible to distinguish notable Facebook groups from the non-notable variety. However, if it is possible to re-write the above article leads so that Facebook group is not a defining characteristic for these organizations, then maybe this category could be reconsidered. Disclaimer: I am the category creator. -Wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is a blogs category, but there isn't a Category:Wordpress blogs category.--KarlB (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Category:Internet activism and its parent Category:Social networking services already exist for these sorts of websites. As I argued before, the fact that they may have started on facebook is not notable, especially given that many of these services branch out into using many different social media tools once they get started, and any social movement who knows what they are doing is likely to have a facebook group or facebook page or facebook like button or whatever. Shabab Libya is a great example - they use facebook, twitter, youtube, and many other services to reach out. We should not be categorizing groups based on the technologies they use. --KarlB (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I hadn't noticed Category:Internet activism until you just pointed it out. I just added April 6 Youth Movement, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, Intern Aware, Let's Adopt, Norwegian Defence League, Pink Chaddi Campaign, Shabab Libya and Students for Concealed Carry to Category:Internet activism. Also, Panepirotic Federation of Australia and Things Bogans Like to Category:Social networking services. -Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I should give some background on why I created this category. At the time, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement was proposed for deletion. Arguments for deletion were made such as "this is a Facebook group, and these are almost never notable in their own right." Clearly the person taking that position was framing this organization with "Facebook group" as its primary defining characteristic. I then decided to look to see if I could find any notable Facebook groups on Wikipedia. The logical first place to look for Facebook groups (in my mind, anyway) was category:Facebook. Failing to find anything, I resorted to a Wikipedia-wide search for all articles containing the term "Facebook group". From that, with the goal of saving the next person to come along looking for the same thing some time, I created the category. Now, I have just added Category:Internet activism as a subcategory of category:Facebook. By following this path, I can find the activist type of Facebook groups that I was looking for. –Wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Thanks. Although I'd suggest you undo the category change you just made. By doing that you are saying that Category:Internet activism is somehow part of facebook. A redirect at the top of the facebook category, like {cat see also|Internet activism} might be better. --KarlB (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep Category:Facebook groups, then there is no need for Category:Internet activism to be a sub-category of Category:Facebook—the first category can hold all Facebook groups, including the subset that engage in Category:Internet activism. I realize the meaning can be misinterpreted, but Facebook groups that engage in Category:Internet activism are a part of Facebook. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Also another quick note. From the interesting deletion discussion on Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement I found the following, from one of the founders of the group: "As he who helped start and helps maintain the CREWE effort, I want to be very clear that CREWE is a group of people who are interested in exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia and work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries. The fact that it's on a Facebook group is circumstantial." That quote to me that illustrates that facebook is a tool, one of many, used for collaboration on the internet, and is seen that way by people who do the work. If people do describe things as 'x is a facebook group', it nonetheless seems wrong to call out the use of a particular technology by a particular company as a navigational category - such information about what technologies they specifically use is really better held in the article itself. We have a category for "youtube videos", but we don't have a category for "Artists who release their videos on youtube" or "companies that use youtube to put up training videos" etc. As for subcats, a reference is the appropriate path here, you don't need to make something a subcategory just to point out that they may be somehow related. Internet activism is many things, but people never say "internet activism *is* Facebook.--KarlB (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even The Signpost defines CREWE as a "Facebook lobby group". - Wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I was dubious about this at first, because there are free-standing organisations that have a facebook presence, but the activists of the Arab Spring were largely orgainsised as facebook groups. If a facebook group is prominent enough to have a WP article, we need a category to deal with that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "the activists of the Arab Spring were largely orgainsised as facebook groups" - actually, that is a common misperception. While the activists in the Arab spring did use facebook and it certainly had a very important impact for organization and especially dissemination of information, they also used a number of other tools including in-person meetings, cell-phone/sms blasts, flyers, posters, marches, etc. - in addition to all of the social media tools they used - facebook, youtube, twitter, etc. Since you are suggesting keep, could you suggest some criteria for inclusion? How do we know the thing that is notable is the 'facebook group', and not the organization *behind* the facebook group? For example, one very prominent facebook page from the Egyptian revolution http://www.facebook.com/elshaheeed.co.uk also has a separately hosted website. Clearly they belong in Category:Online activism, but do we really want to start a policy of classifying online activists by the tools they used first, or most successfully? --KarlB (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this reflects a real phenomenon and change in the way organizations form and maintain themselves. Although it may be unclear and a bit ambiguous at present, I believe the most constructive way to take this on is to leave this for now and revisit the issue at a later time as a clearer picture of the phenomenon emerges. __meco (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and upmerge to internet activists. That the groups use Facebook over other methods of communicating is non-notable. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between category:Internet activists and category:Internet activism is not clear to me. Is "activists" for individual people and "activism" for groups of people? Whatever the distinction is should be spelled out in the lead sentences for these categories. Note that category:Facebook groups is entirely composed of groups, not individuals. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Internet activism was started on 23 October 2006‎, predating category:Internet activists, which Lquilter (talk | contribs)‎ created as a subgroup of category:Internet activism on 1 January 2007‎. I'm posting a note requesting comments on his talk page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Activists is for people, activism is groups. Tha'ts how it seems to be, and it makes sense to me. We often have special categories for people involved in X. I'd suggest just updating the lead sentences accordingly.--KarlB (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it is far too vague; any school or university alumni group will have a facebook group. There are plenty of facebook groups which are nothing to do with activism. Renaming to 'Online activist groups' might work. Oculi (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
only WP:NOTABLE Facebook groups have articles on Wikipedia, and currently there are insufficient notable Facebook groups to merit breaking category:Facebook groups into subcategories. I disagree that the category is vague, the concept of "Facebook group" is fairly well-understood. Heck, I think I know basically what one is, and I've never used Facebook! While currently most members of category:Facebook groups engage in category:Internet activism, not all of them do (e.g., Secret London), and in the future it's possible that a majority of notable category:Facebook groups will be engaged in other activities. I suppose it's possible that Facebook itself will fade away in the future (remember 1980s-90s online services?), but for now, I say, keep and monitor... Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to apologize to this category's creator for bringing it to the attention of the nominator. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2012 (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.

Old Carthusians, Salopians, and Wykehamists[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 - jc37 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed names follow the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 301 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 78 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all except ~20 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. No information is lost to the reader by these renamings, because the "Old Fooian" term is explained in a hatnote in the category as well as in the articles on the schools.
These three "Old Fooian" terms share three common charcateristics:
  1. They relate to a very prominent school, whose prominence is reflected in a high number of seach hits for the school name. All of them are among the 9 schools investigated by the Clarendon Commission in 1864 and reformed by the Public Schools Act 1868. All are now members of the Rugby Group of leading public public schools
  2. Their "Old Fooian" terms do not relate directly to the school names. Knowing which school is involved requires specialist knowledge of the schools' inhouse jargon, and the "Old Fooian" terms are very rarely used in the biographical articles which populate these categories
  3. Their "Old Fooian" terms are massively less widely used than the school names
Old Carthusians
Charterhouse School is one of the most prominent public schools in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia has articles on 358 notable alumni of the school, which is the 6th highest tally for any school in the UK (although only about 1/8th of the number of Old Etonians and half the total of Old Harrovians).
The term "Old Carthusians" derives instead from the Carthusian Order of monks, Charterhouse School having been located for its first 260 years at the London Charterhouse, the site of a former Carthusian monastery in London. The connection will be obscure to anyone not already familiar with the school's history, and since the category is used for biographical articles where the school will usually receive only a passing mention in the "early life" section, we cannot assume that readers will know the connection. (I checked all the articles in the category a year ago, and found that only 3 of the 314 biographical articles then in the category included the term "Old Carthusian")
The "Old Carthusian" term is also highly ambiguous. A plain English reading of it is "old Carthusians", i.e. aged or historical members of the religious order. It has a further possible meaning for anyone familiar with the terminology of Christian churches, where the word "Old" is used to refer to those who reject reforms in the churches: e.g. Old Catholic Church and Old Believers.
Old Salopians
This term does not include the English-language name of the town where the school is located, nor even of the county of Shropshire.
Instead it is based on "Salop", an old name for the county of Shropshire.
A plain English reading of it is "old Salopians", i.e. aged or historical people from Shropshire. Even if the reader is familiar with the "Old Fooian" style of terminology, they can only assume that it refers one of the two dozen secondary schools in Shropshire ... but which one?
Old Wykehamists
This term derives from the Winchester College's foundation in 1382 by William of Wykeham. The "Old Wykehamist" term no doubt makes great sense to those familiar with the schools's history, but not to anyone else.
These problems of ambiguity and obscurity are reflected in the relatively rare incidence of these terms in common usage. The table below shows comparisons with other prominent public schools:
Articles Category CER[1] School GNews hits
school name		 GNews hits
"Old Fooian"		 Notes GNews hits
"Old FooianS"		 Notes
247 Old Alleynians E Dulwich College 1850 17 177 Hits overwhelmingly relate to the eponymous sports club
360 Old Carthusians C R Charterhouse School 703 97 About 35 of these hits refer to old Carthusian monks, old Carthusian monasteries etc 76 About half of these hits are for the eponymous sports club
285 Old Cliftonians R Clifton College 1240 36 30 Hits mostly relate to the eponymous sports club
2437 Old Etonians C E Eton College 7930 4290 1210
215 Old Greshamians Gresham's School 188 1 0
738 Old Harrovians R Harrow School 2980 417 78
182 Old Haileyburians R Haileybury and Imperial Service College 24 8 21
188 Old Malvernians R Malvern School 287 7 27 At least 13 of the 27 hits are for the sports club
354 Old Marlburians E Marlborough College 2370 27 16
113 Old Radleians R Radley College 562 8 16
445 Old Rugbeians C R Rugby School 3730 26 20
208 Old Salopians C R Shrewsbury School 1630 41 10
646 Old Westminsters C E Westminster School 11,000 4210 Masses of false positives for "Old Westminster" and "Westminster school" 38 All but 6 of these hits refer to the eponymous sports teams
602 Old Wykehamists C R Winchester College 1420 38 20
In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous:
21 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools
Articles Category Old Fooian term School CER[1] CfD
112 People educated at Ampleforth College Old Amplefordians Ampleforth College CfD 2012 March 19
76 People educated at Bradfield College Old Bradfieldians Bradfield College R CfD 2012 March 31
61 People educated at Bryanston School Old Bryanstonians Bryanston School E CfD 2012 March 31
170 People educated at Cheltenham College Old Cheltonians Cheltenham College R CfD 2012 February 29
100 People educated at Downside School Old Gregorians Downside School CfD 2012 February 21
104 People educated at Fettes College Old Fettesians Fettes College CfD 2012 March 19
104 People educated at Highgate School Old Cholmeleian Highgate School E CfD 2012 February 22
148 People educated at King's College School, Wimbledon Old King's King's College School E CfD 2011 August 17 and 2010 November 29
193 People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood Old Merchant Taylors Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood C CfD 2012 February 11
111 People educated at Millfield Old Millfieldians Millfield CfD 2012 March 19
24 People educated at Monkton Combe School Old Monktonians Monkton Combe School R CfD 2012 March 31
50 People educated at St Edward's School, Oxford Old St Edwards St Edward's School, Oxford R CfD 2012 February 11
74 People educated at Oundle School Old Oundelians Oundle School R CfD 2012 March 31
245 People educated at St Paul's School, London Old Paulines St Paul's School, London C E CfD 2012 February 26
107 People educated at Stowe School Old Stoics Stowe School R CfD 2012 February 9
75 People educated at The King's School, Canterbury Old King's Scholars The King's School, Canterbury E CfD 2012 March 6
144 People educated at Repton School Old Reptonians Repton School R CfD 2012 March 31
122 People educated at Sherborne School Old Shirburnians Sherborne School E CfD 2012 March 31
122 People educated at Tonbridge School Old Tonbridgians Tonbridge School, Kent E CfD 2012 February 28
185 People educated at University College School Old Gowers University College School, London E CfD 2012 February 25
135 People educated at Uppingham School Old Uppinghamians Uppingham School R CfD 2012 March 31
  1. ^ a b C = "Clarendon Group" of schools reformed by the Public Schools Act 1868; E = Eton Group; R = Rugby Group
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categories, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here).
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Old Carthusians, Salopians, and Wykehamists)[edit]
  • rename Agree with nom. This seems to be a snowball. May as well follow it to its conclusion. --KarlB (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only purpose of a category is to categorize. The names of these three are based on the correct, and indeed the only, names for the groups of people in question. The names are unambiguous and in my view are better-known than the nominator suggests, and there is no good reason why a massive uniformity should be imposed on all such "former pupils" categories. It is, of course, no part of the role of a category to educate Wikipedia readers, but whether BrownHairedGirl and others like it or not Old Carthusians, Salopians, and Wykehamists will go on being described in those terms, and in some walks of British life not knowing the meaning of a Carthusian, a Salopian, or a Wykehamist is a handicap. Seeking to reduce the use of such terms on the English Wikipedia is not egalitarian, as some of BHG's supporters plainly believe, it is foolish, iconoclastic, and counterproductive. Moonraker (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker makes 3 false claims:
    1. He has previously tried the tautological assertion that "the only purpose of a category is to categorize", and it remains as false now as when he made that claim before. Per WP:CAT, the central purpose of a category is actually navigational: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.". The ability of readers to quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics depends on having category names which clearly convey the nature of their contents. The inhouse WP:JARGON terms don't do that, but the proposed new category names will do exactly what it says on the tin.
    2. Only one of the three category names is unambiguous; the other two are highly ambiguous, as set out in the nomination. All three of the "Old Fooian" terms bear a non-obvious relationship to the name of the school, and they will be utterly opaque to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written
    3. I am quite sure that Old Carthusians, Salopians, and Wykehamists will go on being described in those terms, in the limited circles where those terms are currently used. However, it is untrue to imply that they are in general usage: the evidence is set out clearly above that they are not used more widely.
    If it is true (as Moonraker asserts, without evidence) that "in some walks of British life not knowing the meaning of a Carthusian, a Salopian, or a Wykehamist is a handicap", then have no fear: the terms are already explained both in the articles in the schools themselves and in hatnotes in the categories. There is also a comprehensive list in the article Old Boys so that prospective staff of the Bullingdon Club can continue to use Wikipedia to swot up for their job interviews. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, I am not going to reply to all of the above, but I cannot allow the suggestion to pass without comment that the category of "old Carthusians" is being misunderstood as meaning "aged or historical members of the religious order" or else refers to a completely fictional group of "Old Carthusian" anti-reformists; likewise that "Old Salopians" could or should be read as "aged or historical people from Shropshire". Such claims are as preposterous and far-fetched as ever and ought to give the closing admin some pause for thought. Moonraker (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What Monnraker is trying to claim is that it is
    1. "preposterous" to think "old Carthusian" could mean "old Carthusian"
    2. "preposterous" to think "old Salopian" could mean "old Salopian"
    A "Salopian" is a person from Shropshire,[6][7] and a Carthusian is a monk ... but Moonraker seems to want us to believe that our readers should know to expect words to lose their dictionary meanings whenever they are applied to English public schools.
    If Monnraker wants to try the bizarre claim that putting the word "old" before an adjective referring to people cannot refer to aged or historical people of that group, then please let's see his explanation of what a phrase such as "old Londoner" or "old Glaswegian" or "Old Parisian" means.
    If Monnraker is making a narrower claim, and is merely trying to argue that neither of these terms can be read by their plain English meaning of aged or historical people of that type, then please let's see some evidence of the exceptional nature of these terms.
    The evidence that "old Carthusian" refers to the religious order can be found in the Google search linked in the nomination, e.g.
    1. "the old Carthusian monastery in the city of Ghent" (lefthand column, page down once on my screen)
    2. Within the walls of an old Carthusian convent in the ancient Province of Artois
    3. Past the ruins of the old Carthusian Chapel
    Moonraker's contribution to this CfD would be more useful if he tried offering evidence for his outlandish claims rather than merely harrumphing that something is "preposterous". I share his hope that the closing admin will take note of this, because CfDs on this topic have been blighted by far too much of this sort of nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (with caveat) per Moonraker.
As this opposition is likely to be over-ruled anyway (many categories have already been renamed) then we should at least take it to its logical conclusion and do all UK schools, no exceptions - including Eton & Harrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want all the remaining Old Fooian categories to be renamed, then don't oppose the renaming of these ones.
The reason I nominated these separately is that they raise different issues to the other remaining Old Fooian categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. These schools are at the uppermost end of the recognizability scale, and yet their derivative forms appear to be complete gibberish to outsiders.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I definitely do not agree with Moonraker's logic, especially the first two points. These renames will deal with ambiguity issues and will make the category system easier to use and understand, as well as bring these into conformity with now the vast majority of other similar categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Most people in most walks of life even in the UK have never heard of any of these terms. Oculi (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have they heard of the schools in question? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For reasons of consistency and clarity, let you finish the job and change all these UK "Old Fooian" categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it is time to end these forms. Is this finally the end of the line?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to a clear, concise, non-confusing, non-jargony, standardised naming format. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- In the case of Shrewsbury, "Salop" is not merely a version of the county name but the Latin name for the town. The table above shows that these (and Harrovian) are in regular use, though far less so than Old Etonian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the English-language wikipedia. Why should we expect readers to know that a term derived from the Latin name of a town refers to the alumni of a particular school in that town? The 12 Gnews hit for the plural form "Old Salopians" doesn't seem to me to amount to regular usage, and only 6 of those hits are 21st-century usages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and past CFDs. All three are not directly related to the school's English name and are not easily recognisable. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Commonname. WP:TITLECHANGES is explicit that titles should be sourced. "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Cjc13 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite clear that both of your links refer to articles not categories. We are not inventing new names. We are just making the categories clearer to readers. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules for naming of articles also apply to the naming of categories. Per WP:NCCAT, "Standard article naming conventions apply". Cjc13 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are reading too much in to that. The words following do not indicate anything of the kind you are suggesting. If "In particular, do not capitalize regular nouns .." is the most important point that clause deals with, you are really stretching a point here. The rules for naming articles are not the same as conventions. Clarity is the key feature for naming categories. Come on. I fought your side for a long time, until I came to realize that it made no sense and that it was not the end of world as we know it if we did something that was clearer and intrinsically less contentious. It is time you made the same decision. BTW, what "Old Fooian" are you? I'm still an "Old Edwardian" whatever we name the categories. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:07, 2 May 2012 (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:RT (TV network) programs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:RT (TV network) programs to Category:RT (TV network) programmes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct spelling of "programmes" when in relation to a TV programme —Sladen (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly find the link you provide helpful as to which convention to go by. The US category uses the name series instead of program. Also, Category:Organizations by country clearly suggests that no standardization is necessary and that WP:ENGVAR should be respected and interpreted cautiously. __meco (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this not an WP:ENGVAR issue? Americans (and many Canadians) spell the TV thing "program". (Mind you, an American is probably more likely to refer to a "show" than a "program" on television.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:ENGVAR, renaming for the sake of renaming between English dialects for a subject that is not tied to British English (arguably, it is more closely linked to American English, because of the two Superpowers of the Cold War) 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the correct spelling is always program in my book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support its not a big deal, and the rest of the category already uses programme (or television series). consistency, why not eh? Category:Television series by network --KarlB (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- To me as an Englishman a "program" operates a computer. For any other purpose (outside USA) it should be "programme". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a WP:ENGVAR issues, which neither the nominator nor several of the participants have acknowledged. Compare with member bategories in Category:Organizations by country. __meco (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2012 (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:Yahoo! Groups[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 to delete now; purge and then revisit. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yahoo! Groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a random assortment of groups that may (or may not) have a mailing list somewhere on yahoo. Not encyclopedic, and I think there are many millions of groups on yahoo groups, and it's quite possible given the breadth of that service, that many many organizations on wikipedia have used yahoo's services at some point in the past. We don't have a category for 'websites hosted by BigDaddy', so this category should not exist either. KarlB (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge. This category should be reserved for a) articles on individual yahoogroups which are themselves notable (i.e. have a standalone article), and b) article on topics directly related to YahooGroups (e.g. ONElist and EGroups). It should not contain articles on other topics simply because there is a related discussion grouo at yahoogroups, because use of these groups is so widespead that it is non-defining.
    It may be that once purged, the result will fail WP:SMALLCAT, but let's start by doing the purge and seeeing what's left. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral on deletion, but purge if kept (changing my !vote). It seems that once purged, this category is likely to fail WP:SMALLCAT, so I won't oppose deletion ... but I would prefer if more checking was done first about how many articles would belong in a renamed caegory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge - this seems to be the result of a gross misunderstanding, where a category about Yahoo Groups has been misinterpreted as being a category for any topic about which there is a Yahoo Group. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Actually, I don't think its a misunderstanding - the person who created this category, today, is the same person who populated it. So their intent in creating the category and filling it up seems clear. Now, if there are arguments from other editors why this category, which never existed before, should now be kept (and not just be upmerged into Category:Yahoo!) then that is another matter, but the contents of the category as it stands now are per the desire of the category creator.--KarlB (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge Same as my comments about Facebook. While I don't think the involvement with Yahoo is defining, I think the fact that the article is about an online, socially networked group is and I would favor a different category to capture that. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As for the purging proposal, the two examples ONElist and eGroups appear to have lived quite happily in Category:Yahoo! before. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should not be categorizing things by what sorts of on-line media they chose to advance themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this category may illustrate why our free-for all system of creating categories has drawbacks. On the other hand if we had to go through special processes to create ever X emigrants to Y category and evey Z year establishment in Y category we might also have problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- The category should be limited to groups that exist solely as yahoo groups. Freestanding clubs which use yahoo to publiciuse their activities should be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    comment could you take a stab at a more precise definition, since you are proposing keep? For example, what defines a 'freestanding club'? And what defines a group 'that exists solely as a yahoo group' _ for example, if a separate website exists, does that disqualify them? What if they also have a youtube channel, or a twitter account? --KarlB (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge. Only groups that use Yahoo! Groups as their main membership forum should be here. Then, if what remains isn't viable we'll have it back here for a new round. __meco (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2012 (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:Cruel Intentions[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cruel Intentions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: All are interlinked well--no need for a category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. As with many of this editor's CfD nominations, no action is proposed. Please state what action you want taken, to save other editors guessing whether you want to merge this category to another, or just delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: This comes down to a user interface issue with twinkle. If you ask twinkle to delete a category, it will ask you for a rationale; most people won't repeat 'delete this' because you've already selected 'delete this' in the drop down. Then, when the category shows up here, for delete, the word delete is not mentioned. I don't think you should blame the user, I think we should jsut make a simple UI change to Twinkle, to add the words 'category should be deleted' to the end of any deletion nom (for merges, twinkle correctly mentions the word merge for example). --KarlB (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point -- this coild easily be solved by a fix to Twinkle's output.
I have submitted at bug report at https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/95 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Exactly--thanks Karl and BHG. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just fixed the problem this edit to {{Cfd2}}. Thanks to those who helped solve the problem, and apologies to Justin; I think that my initial comment may have been a little unfair to Justin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just brought up to 5 articles (not counting the template) so it escapes WP:SMALL in my book. It's true they (and some other) articles are linked with the template but I don't see that precluding a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - RevelationDirect seems to misunderstand WP:SMALL, which is more to do with potential for growth than present size. Moonraker (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The standard is "small with no potential for growth" but, oddly, small is never defined. My definition is 4 or fewer real articles (excluding templates, redirects, images). With 5 articles, I think this category is "medium with nor room for growth". RevelationDirect (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Moonraker is right. There is no real potential for growth here. 6 is not enough to keep a category unless it is clearly part of a regularly established pattern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedians who like X[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: Wikipedians who dislike user-like categories, I mean delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only used by a userspace template. Probably violates Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User_categories. The author created them via an automated process, and speedied a few of them when people complained. This CfD is to clean up the rest of similar categories. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Evidence#Expects_other_people_to_find_his_errors_for_him. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2012 (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.

ADDED AFTER CLOSURE: Author was blocked and he couldn't request deletion via WP:CSD#G7. I should have requested speedy deletion on his behalf. Sorry about that. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures illustrated on banknotes[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: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Danish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Norwegian banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Danish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Danish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Danish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Turkish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings and structures illustrated on Danish banknotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:People illustrated on banknotes was deleted in a recent discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 31#Category:People illustrated on banknotes. The consensus was that being illustrated on a banknote is not a defining characteristic of a person. It also not a defining characteristic of a building or structure. Tim! (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category has the same issue that the people category had.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per the people category. Oculi (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. I supported keeping the people category, but since they are gone, let's be consistent. However, let's also preserve the info in these categories, by listifying them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and listify agree with arguments above. --KarlB (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I do think this topic is of interest to people, but categorizign the actual buildings is not useful. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining aspect of a building. Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify & delete per BHG. LeSnail (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIstify & delete -- This is far too like a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2012 (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:Children of national leaders[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Children of national leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_30#Category:Parents_of_national_leaders. I'll tag the subcats immediately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories:
  • Oppose The parents of national leaders cat was deleted because there was not really a shared caracteristic. Here we are grouping a bunch of categories where the people share a caracteristic. Also, parents of national leaders who are notable are generally notable for some other reason. The children on the other hand can never escape the shadow of their parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response How can being a child be a shared characteristic, but not being a parent...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – we don't categorise people by the achievements of their relatives. We have Category:Roosevelt family for the likes of Archibald Roosevelt, which is quite enough. Oculi (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I know it is not the same in every country, for example in the United States where I live, the children of Presidents are not that big of a deal, but in my native country of Colombia, the children of former Presidents are viewed with a special interest because they are often proppelled into public life and often rise in politics much faster than the rest (those who are not children of former presidents), and according to many critics, with far less merit, it is because of this that they (children of Presidents) are often referred to as dauphins by the media for their privilaged background, clout, and popularity before they jump into politics, so in Colombia's case, this category does serve a purpose to categorize those people who because of their fathers' achievements have gained recognition. I know that in other countries like India, Pakistan, UAE, and Thailand, children of former presidents get favourable treatment and are often seen as the successors of their parent's rule, hence the term dauphin. mijotoba (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per JPL. Being a child of a national leader is very much a defining characteristic of Chelsea Clinton, Mark Thatcher, Carol Thatcher, Jenna Hager (nee Bush), Barbara Pierce Bush, Michael Reagan. William Pitt the Younger, Maurice Macmillan, Malcolm MacDonald, Cecelia Ahern, Seán Haughey, Vivion de Valera, Liam Cosgrave, Liam T. Cosgrave, Benny Begin and countless others. Many of them are notable mostly of their relationship to the parents, and many of them had a career boost through that relationship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt Mrs. Hager would be notable if her father had not been president, but that is a counter-factural possibility so not proveable. Unlike with parents, msot of these people were alive during and after their parent's terms in office and so had their life course effected in significant ways. Many (if not most) parents of national leaders died before their child becaome a national leader. In fact in a large number of cases there two events are directly connected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Keep Per BrownHairedGirl and JPL. There are a number of people who are notable for being children of national leaders. I see this categorisation system as entirely appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is clearly a notable characteristic. If the subjects are notable enough to have an article, they should be categorised accordingly. Conversely however, the existence of the category must not be allowed to encourage the creation of articles on NN children of leaders. I beleive we deleted or redirected articles on Tony Blair's children, for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is defining, which seems to be the pivotal issue in the discussion. __meco (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2012 (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:Rosarians[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 as proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Rosarians to Category:Rose breeders
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These categories are essentially duplicates, and "Rosarian" is an ambiguous term. As defined by the OED, it can mean: "(1) A member of any of the Confraternities of the Rosary, spiritual associations whose members try to pray the Rosary weekly." or "(2) A person interested or engaged in the cultivation of roses." This category is currently being used for (2), but is liable to be confused as meaning (1). The target category is clear and unambiguous in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per clarity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity. The fact that the first category is not using the lead definition of the term is problematic at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to remove vagueness.--Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom & JPL. LeSnail (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - indeed, upon seeing this I assumed it referred to (1) before moving to the proposed name and realising it's (2). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom & JPL. I see no point in renaming. What to? Another category for rose breeders, since all members are rose breeders. Or a category for members for a spiritual association when we have no articles to go into it? __meco (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2012 (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:Matsu[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 to upmerge, so rename to Category:Matsu Islands. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Matsu to Category:Matsu Islands
Nominator's rationale: To match the lead article, Matsu Islands. This probably could be a speedy but I was reluctant to be Bold in the Taiwan/China areas. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Categories and articles should (almost?) always match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge one article to parent categories, upmerge township cat to the parent townships cat. There is no reason to have this category as it stands now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either rename or Upmerge -- not sure which is best as I do not know the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (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:Quemoy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Quemoy to Category:Kinmen
Nominator's rationale: To match the lead article, Kinmen. There are 2 other articles wth "Kinmen" in the title for a total of 3 versus only 1 article in the category with the spelling "Quemoy". Kinmen represents the preffered translation format by the Republic of China while Quemoy is a long-standing but poorly translated Anglicized name. Alternatively, WP:COMMONNAME could be used to argue Quemoy is more common in English (400K hits on Google vs 271K for Kinmen), in which case the lead article should be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think not quite always. Article names can tolerate more ambiguity than should be allowed in category names. LeSnail (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Good Ol’factory, to match head article. Hope that the title of the head article stabilises. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to agree with main article. LeSnail (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2012 (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/2012_April_17&oldid=1139195922"