The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale the current name implies the people are in some way colonial, but it is actually New York that is colonial, and we should formulate the name to make that clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This is one of a family of categories in Category:American colonial people by state. No rationale is offerred why this one should be made an exception to a long standing pattern. The people were 'colonial'; they were colonists in a new land. Hmains (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "colonial people" sounds weird. The geographic entity isn't specified. New York City? New York State? Further down in the tree is included: List of colonial governors of New York, which refers to the Province of New York, which in turn includes territory that now is in Delaware. ChemTerm (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Category:American colonial people by state has 20 sub-categories, including this one. All of them use the same format: "Foo colonial people". No argument or evidence has been produced that New York is an exceptional case .... so create a group nomination to change them all, or leave them all as they are. Consistency in the titles of set categories helps both readers and editors, and should be maintained unless there are specific grounds for creating an exception. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is for those who recognized the government of New York prior to its independence. To call the people "colonial" is to apply a level of specificitry to the people that does not make sense. The whole naming system is flawed, but that is no reason to postpone action. We should evaluate names on their merit and not insist on mass nominatoions, which take lots of time and energy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mass nominations don't take that much time, but they have many advantages. Firstly, they ensure that we retain consistency in category names, which is a principle so uncontroversial that we have a speedy criterion C2C allowing it to be implemented without the normal discussion process. Secondly, doing this it as one mass nomination ensures that editors interested in these categories don't need to have the same discussion more than once. Thirdly, doing it as a mass nomination ensures that many more editors are notified. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are a bunch of categories here, and they each have their own issues. The claim that all 20 American colonial cats are the same ignored the fact that some of the places involved never existed as colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. As used, these American "colonial people" categories contain articles about people associated with a geographic location during the colonial era -- a time period. That is a defining characteristic and a useful basis for a historical biography category. I wouldn't want to think about having to categorize articles based on a determination of which foreign power they were loyal to (not a defining characteristic). Also, I don't believe that there ever was a colony called "British New York". --Orlady (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then what was it. We use names to identify places, not neccesarily the names that were used at the time. The issues is what government held control over the lives of the people, what place they were in. It is an act of assering European imperial might to place people in categories for poolicial domains they never recognized. These categories need to be limited to the actual zone of control of the polities in question. Iroqouis who did not recognize the government of New York as their overlord should not be in this category, nor should people who lived under Dutch control be arbitrarily grouped with those who later lived under English control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These colonial categories aren't about politics or imperial control. The Colonial period is a recognized time period in the history of the United States. The same terminology is used in other regions that were formerly colonies of one or more world powers. In connection with categories like Category:Pre-statehood history of U.S. states, these "colonial people" categories are used for people who were active in a particular U.S. state or region during the time between initial European settlement and U.S. independence. That is a defining characteristic and is an entirely valid basis for a category. The political interpretation that the nominator is trying to apply to these categories is not a defining characteristic, and if these categories are no longer available in their current form, we won't have a valid place to categorize a large number of articles about historical people. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to mix people in British New York with those who lived earlier in New Netherlands as if they were the same place is just historically irresponsible. The fact that we have Category:People of New Netherland shows that we should distinguish these two groups of people have already been acknowledged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is being used in such an odd way that it includes as one of its subcats Category:People of New Sweden. I have no clue why that is, but I think it illustrates that this is an extremely poorly chosen name, and we need to use a new name that will invoke a clear and concise geographical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- we have categories for New Netherlands and New Sweden, presumably both referring to the peiod before British New York. Category:People of Colonial New York would be an appropriate parent for them all, but as a container with Category:People of British New York as a new subcategory, inot which many of the articles should be moved. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the conflicts between -- and the complexity of changes of boundaries and jurisdictions between -- the Dutch, Swedish, and British in New York in the 17th century, political jurisdictions are not defining characteristics for all of the notable people who were in the region during the colonial period. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People seem to be missing the fact that New Sweden included parts of modern Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. It did not at all correspond to New York. It thus seems just plain wrong to place it under the New York category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I think people may be missing the fact that this category is used for articles about people who were active in New York (as that place is defined now) when it was under colonial control (by one or another colonial power). The category's geographic scope is not defined by political control, but by physical location. --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment if this nomination were changed just to a rename to People of colonial New York, I could agree with it as it then matches the default standard used for people associated with historical periods or events. Hmains (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer lower case "colonial" too, avoiding the impression that "Colonial New York" is a legal entity of its own. ChemTerm (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lots of confusion: are we going to have people of colonial New York (somehow rewriting history to redraw borders), people of New Netherlands, and then post-independence folks too? Why not People of New York (pre-1664), ... (1664-1776), ... (post-1776). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Use style as proposed for the two Chinas below. ChemTerm (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Indian law" is highly ambiguous in North America, considering the way that Amerindians are called "Indian", and that India the country does not contain all the traditional countries of the past that are considered Indian -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Furthermore, I would support renaming all the country categories at Category:Law by country in the same fashion (e.g., Category:Finnish law to Category:Law in Finland). As I see it, law is associated with a political jurisdiction and not with a national identity, so the category name should identify the jurisdiction. However, that kind of change requires a broader discussion. --Orlady (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that we should have a wider discussion on renaming all such categories to a new common format which a) avoids ambiguities; b) identifies jurisdiction rather than nationality; c) can accommodate those areas which there are multiple sets of laws (e.g. European countries have both the law of their own state and European Union law, and some such as Ireland also incorporate some of the law of predecessor states and former colonial powers). A wider to discussion is needed on how to adopt a consistent naming format which can accommodate all the various permutations. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now, without prejudice to a further renaming. This nomination is based on a well-founded rationale, and removing the huge ambiguity here should be done without delay. However, as noted above, we need a wider discussion, so my support for this proposal is without prejudice to a further renaming to a new global format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 18 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As pointed out to me in a previous nomination on November 13, we do not want to use the short name China for PRC, because the long name serves as an important historical division. The RoC category name is also still required because it contains categories for pre-1949 as well as Category:Taiwanese law. Although most of Category:Law by country would use the pattern "Category:Chinese law", this would be ambiguous, and is already used for the pan-historical parent category. In such cases, "Law in" is more common than "Law of", e.g. Category:Law in the Republic of Ireland, so that is the only change recommended in this proposal. – FayenaticLondon 21:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first -- though both are redlinks. RoC is ambiguous, referring both to the mainland 1912-49 and Taiwan 1945 on. Rename Category:Law of the Republic of China to Category:Law in Taiwan. WP has decided that its name for the present (largely unrecognised) RoC is Taiwan. Any articles on pre-PRC mainland law need to be purged into a new China 1912-49 or a pre-communist China category. I presume that there were substantial changes in law afte rthe Communist takeover. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have decided to use "China" as the designation for China just like we use Russia as the designation for Russia. I think the current names here work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 30 November 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.
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 - jc37 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As we have the full coverage of power station categories by energy source (e.g. category:Coal-fired power stations etc) this category is unnecessary as additional level between Category:Power stations and energy source specific categories. The category was originally created by blocked user:Mac who run anti fossil and nuclear fuel and pro-renewable fuel campaign in Wikipedia and it was to used to oppose the type of energy. This category was discussed in May 2010 and then the nomination was withdrawn after arguments that "this is a useful container category" and "a common umbrella for all burner plants". However, this is unnecessary container category as we have more specific categories and we don't have that kind of additional level for renewable and nuclear power stations. This is also not the common category for all burner power stations as biomass and peat combustion power stations which use the same technology does not belong here. However, if kept, we should create the similar categories for all countries as at the moment the country specific categories are available only for five countries. Beagel (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no not chnage One of the parents here is Category:Fossil fuels. No reason is offered why this navagation path from Fossil fuels to fossil fuels power stations should be destroyed. Indeed, there can be no valid justification for such destruction. Ignoring a parent tree to achieve some aim or another is not helpful. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The navigation still there through specific type of fossil fuel, e.g. category:Coal includes category:Coal-fired power stations etc. AS I said, if kept, we need country these specific categories for all countries, not just for five of them. The same applies also for Category:Renewable energy power stations and its country-specific categories (I did not saw this at the time of nomination as this category was not categorized under category:Power stations by type), which is created by the same editor although this time by different user name. Beagel (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Fossil fuels" is a well-defined widely used umbrella term for coal, petroleum, natural gas, and related fuels; it is not political rhetoric as the nominator apparently suggests. It is very sensible and useful to maintain these "fossil fuel power stations by country" categories as container categories. The fact that other countries don't yet have articles for their fossil-fueled power stations does not justify dismantling a useful category structure. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is an unneccesary level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom's object is obviously that coal-fored, gas-fired, and oil-fired power stations should be directly in Power stations by type. The problem is that there are some that are dual fuelled, so that they can switch between fuels according to the price of fuels. Where do we put them? I appreciate that "Fossil-fueled" seems an unnecessary level of categorisation. I suspect that the answer is to upmerge, with dual-fuelled ones having both categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my earlier comments - These energy-related category hierarchies have long been a hodge-podge; they have not been developed very thoroughly and systematically. IMO, categorizing power stations by umbrella categories such as "Fossil fuel" is a major step towards the kind of systematization that has been done so effectively in other parts of Wikipedia. I've spent some time working on Category:Fossil fuels by country, Category:Renewable energy by country, Category:Fossil fuel power stations by country, Category:Renewable energy power stations by country, their subparts, and related categories to build out the hierarchies more thoroughly and logically, in hopes of demonstrating how much cleaner the categories could become with some constructive attention (I don't count deletion and upmerging as constructive). I've only tackled a couple of countries, but the categories for power stations, renewable energy, and fossil energy for New Zealand, France, and the United States are now reasonably well developed and should demonstrate the logic and what could be done in the rest of the world. (See, for example, Category:Power stations in New Zealand and Category:Renewable energy in New Zealand.) --Orlady (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. Sorry to say, but saying that power stations categories are not developed systematically is not true. There are still areas in the field of energy-related categories where more systematic work is needed (and appreciated) but this does not apply power power sttaion categories and saying that power station category hierarchies have long been a hodge-podge is a baseless exaggeration. I don't think that any of these editors who has done systematic work with these categories will agree with your evaluation. The hierarchy is that under category:Power stations we have both category trees—by country (category:Power stations by country → category:Power stations in foo → power stations by type in foo) and by type (including country-specific subcategories). I see some logic for fossil and renewable fuel power station categories but it still seems unnecessary extra stage. However, if the consensus will be to keep the fossil and renewable power stations categories, I hope you will take a part of creating these additional categories for all 147 Power stations in foo categories. Beagel (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The power station categories are, for the most part, reasonably well-developed. I know you've done a lot of the work in those areas, Beagel. It's the interconnections -- particularly with topics like "Renewable energy" -- that aren't so well developed. Also, I discovered that categories like Category:Oil-fired power stations by country had not yet been added to categories like Category:Fossil fuel power stations by country. I did work on several global and country-specific categories -- not just with fossil fuel power stations, but also with renewable energy power stations and various other energy categories -- to get a better understanding of the situation and to demonstrate what could be done. Obviously, there is more work to be done, but it seems premature to build out the entire category structure when some of the key categories are being actively considered for deletion and/or upmerging. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I also have been involved in creating various aspects of this category tree, which still also seems sound to me. If kept, I can also help in fully 'treeing' it. Hmains (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added extensively to the category tree. About 25 countries are now reasonably well in conformance with a structure that places "Fossil fuels", "Renewable energy", "Electric power", "Energy infrastructure", "Energy companies", and "Nuclear energy" (and sometimes a couple of other topics) at the top level under "Energy in country". --Orlady (talk) 23:32, 25 November 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:International awards of Czech music or musicians[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) 22:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Only contains one page which is a list. – FayenaticLondon 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- we normally listify and delete awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 18 November 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This will follow the precedent found in such categories as Category:People of British India. It will also make it more clear who these people are. They are people of the Dutch East Indies, not Dutch people in the East Indies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a much better form of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support C2C - People of/from TerritorialEntityName. ChemTerm (talk) 21:06, 22 November 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.
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 rename - jc37 11:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is the general way we have dealt with forms that as a direct adjective present an apparance of being something other than a direct combination of nationality (or whatever exactly French Polynesianess is) and being a person. The closest precedent I know is Category:People of British India and there are lots of precedents at Category:People by nationality and period. While French Polynesia exists in the present, there is no reason to treat it differently than past places that can not be put into a direct adjectival form. We should rename all the subcats, but I really did not feel like nominating them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as French Polynesia is a current country, and the demonym is French Polynesian. The nominator might consider withdrawing this pending the RfC at Category talk:People by nationality#rfc_389B231. Moreover, this CfD seems to go against his own opposition to such renamings expressed at the RfC! – FayenaticLondon 21:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not really related to the RfC. If it is good enough for historical countries when the issue is ambiguous, it is good enough for present countries. It is very odd when people try to point out inconsistencies in others arguments. The fact of the matter is that French Polynesia is not per se a "Country" it is an overseas territory of France. It is no more a country (and no less) than was British India which always at some level existed in oppositon to Portuguese India. Anyway, there are lots of countries that do not have good adjectival forms, and I still hold that the change would be good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename Nomination is confused regarding the WP standard naming of such categories. There is no reason to accept this confusion into WP no matter what the invented excuse. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is part of Category:French people by place. It is the only category in that system that uses the adjectival form. It has as a sister Category:People from Saint Barthélemy. However as I showed by mention to Category:People of British India there is clearly an acceptance of using the of form. It is much better at conveying the connectedness of the people to the place when the name of the place is an odd compound that does not merge into a possive form easily, or when made possive could be misconstrued.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a much better form of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. C2C - People of/from TerritorialEntityName. ChemTerm (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I strongly oppose the efforts to eliminate the "FOOian people" form in this piecemeal fashion, bit-by-bit. Especially the adoption of "of" over the standard "from". Follow the naming conventions, which states that the correct form is "FOOian people". Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except the deaprtments are all part of that tree as well, so there are lots and lots of categories using the from form. Your insult of the of form is entirely uncalled for. It is really, really annoying how often you insult other peoples ideas needlessly by calling them "atrocious" or "abominations". I find such behavior extremely rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to proposals, I say what I think about them. That's the way the system is supposed to work. It's OK to criticise ideas, and it's definitely needed, considering some of the ideas that are floated. If users think proposals are bad, they should definitely say that they think they are bad. I do not attack users, which we all know should be avoided on WP. If you take umbrage that I don't like some of your proposals, that may be hard for you (depending on what you think of me as a user), but I can't say that I regret anything I have said in this discussion, nor do I think I have stepped over any lines. (PS: French Polynesia is not a department of France, so apples–oranges.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:37, 29 November 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be more in line with the categories inclusion criteria: "People who have been convicted of tax evasion,". ArmbrustTheHomonculus 10:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this gives us a clear definition of the term. This is one of the general requirements for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename C2C, following recent renaming of its sub-cats on the same grounds. – FayenaticLondon 21:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This solves the BLP and verifiability issues. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it should be persons rather than people. The word persons is the regular plural of person; the word people carries additional baggage. --Trovatore (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the wrong convention and should be changed. People has a connotation of some sort of connection among those included, not just some fact that holds of each individual. Or at least it can have that connotation, whereas persons is completely neutral (maybe a little legalistic, but in context that's completely appropriate). --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- in my country, prosecution for tax evasion is unusual, though it does happen. It is much more usual for the tax authorities to seek to collect the tax owed and a large financial penalty. However, that is a provate negotiation that probably does not regularly get reported. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, some people are convicted of tax evasion, such as Lester Piggott, but PeterKingiron is correct that it is rare.
In Ireland the process is more transparent. The 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides that all settlements with the Revenue which meet certain criteria are publicly documented in the Quarterly List of Defaulters. However, that list is not restricted to those who have actively evaded tax, and the vast majority most of those listed have not been prosecuted, so it would be wrong to identify those on the lists as "tax "evaders".
I'm sure that there are many differing approaches taken by the various tax systems around world; some will rely almost exclusively on administrative penalties, whereas others will be more inclined to criminal prosecution. But whatever the enforcement approach, we should stick to the general principle that we only place people in categories-by-criminal-offence if there has been a criminal conviction. It's the only objective way of doing this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 19 November 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.
