From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

Category:Boats and rafts made of plastic bottles

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 the rafts to Category:Rafts, and move the people to Category:Rafting for now. There is a majority opinion to move the rafts, though some discomfort with the term "junk." I put the people in the Rafting category, but there can be more subdivision into something like Category:Raft builders if desired.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Boats and rafts made of plastic bottles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, WP:BETTERASANARTICLE and WP:RECYCLETHISDATA. But seriously, there is only one article that is a serious contender for the category. Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_19#Category:Boats_and_rafts_made_of_plastic_bottles -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)I am keen on categories myself but we don't actually need such a category. Also, it seems really odd putting people in a category about objects. I would, ah, object to a Category:People associated with junk rafts! -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Note Alan and I disagree over whether people associated with junk rafts should be included. The two contenders are David Mayer de Rothschild and Charles J. Moore. Perhaps they belong, perhaps they don't bringing the article count down to 3, or perhaps the category could be alternatively renamed (maybe "Junk rafting") to include them. RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    A third associated person, Poppa Neutrino has since been identified, if you think people should be in the category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • keep There are three rafts, a lead article, and two notable people associated particular with long-distance junk rafts. That's plenty to justify a category.
As to the inclusion of the people, then of course they should be. When someone thinks of an equally clear title that can't be misconstrued by Alan to imply that David de Rothschild is a raft made of empty bottles, then we can change it. In the meantime, let's all find something rather more useful to be doing.
One question - what about the many (and surely some are notable) river-based raft races for "junk rafts"? They're far from the same thing as an ocean-crossing yacht-functionary. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I've seen news clips on those races but didn't find any existing articles to categorize. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see any reasons to be confident that any would be notable. – Fayenatic L (talk)
  • Keep and rename to Category:Junk rafting as suggested by RevelationDirect. This would allow the articles on people to be kept in it, and lead to it being placed in a more useful set of parent categories. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I'd agree that creating Category:Junk rafting seems like a good idea. It's a home for raft races for one thing. There are many of these, established by repeated events over years and garnering ample press coverage. One of my local ones is here: http://www.char.co.uk/
This then leaves the question of the bottle boats. I'm inclining to see these as a separate sub-category. Clearly three (just from wiki sources) separate and notable groups have constructed such boats as a protest against the one-use plastic bottle as a specific issue, and have them carried out trans-oceanic voyages with them. That's rather more than a summer afternoon's tomfoolery. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Clarification I would not be in favor of keeping Category:Boats and rafts made of plastic bottles as a subcategory of Category:Junk rafting at this time. I see the current category as flawed (too narrrowly constructed, no main article, too few articles) but salvagable with the renaming. Any concepts about using/recycling different types of trash is probably best left at the article level, IMHO, unless the total number of articles increases drastically. RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "junk", though not to the principle to renaming to something. A "junk" is (or was) a Chinese ocean-going (or coasting) vessel. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • This category raises some interesting issues, with apologies in advance for whoever get to close this. I'm probably leaning delete and listify. The other option would be a rename to Category:Watercraft constructed with non traditional materials. This would allow for the inclusion of concrete boats and probably some others. If this was renamed, recreation could be allowed in the future if it was really needed as the subcategory of the new one. If kept, I'm opposed to using junk raft as the name since I have a fear that this may allow for a broader set of articles then intended. If kept or renamed the people should be removed from the category. I'm far from being convinced that we need Category:People associated with junk rafts so I would oppose creating that as a result of this discusion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Junk rafting. A "junk raft" is distinct enough from a "junk" as to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Come on people. This is getting ridiculous! Lets move on. Pull finger. So what is wrong with upmerging to the under-populated Category:Rafts. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Rafts per Alan Liefting. It is underpopulated, and can easily accommodate the few entries in this small category. The 4 articles in this category are all linked from the article junk raft. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:44, 25 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:Sports in the Marshall Islands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 23. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands to Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merging two existing categories; unification with the other categories in Category:Sport by country. Gumruch ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
support speedy close if possible. this one looks like a no brainer. -- KarlB ( talk) 19:16, 15 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:Misnomers

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) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Misnomers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, over-categorization of unrelated articles by shared naming characteristic. (This contrasts with sibling category Category:Naming controversies which is justifiable as its members are mostly articles about controversies.) I have listed the current members at Talk:Misnomer in case any of them could usefully be added to the list of examples there (with explanations of why they are considered misnomers). That lead article, along with List of misnamed theorems and Patrick of Avernia, should probably be upmerged to Category:Error. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support - Agree with nominator, and many of them are not misnomers. BTW, by consensus no new examples are to be added to Misnomers without consensus. See Talk:Misnomer. Cresix ( talk) 15:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment i think we should rename this category. The name doesn't seem quite right. -- KarlB ( talk) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Such as?? I see no relationship among the items other than the misguided opinion of a few that they are misnomers. Better to just get rid of it altogether. Cresix ( talk) 19:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Just think about what I wrote. it will come to you. :) -- KarlB ( talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
– Fayenatic L (talk) 20:44, 15 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:Theorems in Galois theory

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted to CfD 2012 April 23. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:Theorems in Galois theory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no reason to diffuse the self-contained Category:Galois theory into a microscopic subcategory. (Part of a massive campaign by Brad7777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to totally screw with the existing mathematics categorization.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the merits of this category, but it was emptied (and removed from all its head categories) out of process. I have left a note for the nominator about this. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment To understand Professor Biały's comments, it suffices to consult the discussions of Brad's good-faith recategorizations, e.g. at the WikiProject Mathematics and Brad's talk page. Sadly, Brad's efforts are only several orders of magnitude more informed than the generic floundering at "Categories for Discussion/Deletion".  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 5:47 pm, Today (UTC+2) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC). reply
  • Proposal: how about renaming it to Galois representations, which is clearly more than Galois theory. -- Taku ( talk) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Renaming what? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Are you proposing creating a category in lattice theory? (Birkhoff has a discussion of Galois correspondences in his monograph.)  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:51, 15 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:Old Harrovians

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 01:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Old Harrovians to Category:People educated at Harrow School
Nominator's rationale: In for a penny...

Per WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012 April 14#Category:Old Etonians If we're going to do this to schools, we should do this to all of them.

Besides which, per [1] BrownHairedGirl ""Old Etonians" are an unique case " and so Old Harrovians are not falling under any "Eton exclusion" that we might (although I would hope not) choose to grant them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose ... in for a pound! There are 44,500 hits for "Old Harrovian" on Google (cf. 170,000 for "Old Etonian"). Both seem to indicate common usage. Tens of thousands would seem reasonably common to me. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Three and a half thousand ghits and over a hundred WP articles for Category:Old Amplefordians too, yet that was renamed. The question (assuming this alumni rename happens at all) underlying all this is, "Are some things more WP:Notable than others?" Etonians, Harrovians, Amplefordians are all clearly notable. As I interpret policy, we consider things as notable or not, we don't (as "Old Harrovians" and "Old Etonians" would require) consider Amplefordians to be "notable, but not notable enough to use their own common name" but Eton and Harrow to be "extra-notable" so that we do defer to their own choice. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Jpbowen's search uses a flawed methodology, by relying on a general google search. That approach is specifically deprecated in WP:COMMONNAME.
    For a longer explanation of why a Google News search is more relevant, see my !vote below. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Google News is also flawed as regards the UK as it excludes some newspapers such as The Times and has a limited UK archive. Cjc13 ( talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. With less than 20 of these categories unnominated and hundreds renamed, there's no legitimate reason to preserve the nickname status for the remaining few.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support – this now seems analogous to the 'People from' categories. Some were obscure or ambiguous or unused except locally, others such as 'Londoner', 'Liverpudlian' are in common use, all were renamed (see the related cfd in 2006). Oculi ( talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, though not entirely for the nominator's reasons. I generally favour consistency, but as noted elsewhere I have always accepted the idea that there might be scope for retaining the "Old Fooian" terms in a few exceptional cases where there was clear evidence that they had achieved sufficiently widespread usage to be recognisable to readers and thereby help navigation. For me, that's what all these OldFooian renamings have been about: making it easy for readers to figure out the purpose of a category just by seeing its name. In the end, the only such term which I see as having reached a sufficiently high level of common usage is "Old Etonian". In the table of Google News hit counts which I included in an earlier CfD, the "Old Etonians" get about 100 times as many hits as most of the prominent schools listed there, whether counting the singular or plural form. However, the "Old Harrovians" get only ten times as many as the pack for the singular form, and only 2 or 3 times the number for the plural form. So the evidence of common usage of "Old Harrovian(s)" simply isn't there, and without that there is no reason to justify retaining it as a category name.
    I note Jpbowen's comment above about the results of a google search, but those figures appear to relate to a general google search. That approach is specifically deprecated by WP:COMMONNAME, which prefers Google News and Google Books because they concentrate reliable sources. I used Google News for these comparisons, because as well as beinf reliable sources, News articles have a massively wider circulation than most books, so they are a much better measure of the whether a term is in common usage. The general search used by JpBowen includes hits from unreliable sources such as blogs and web forums, and it includes pages which may have a miniscule readership. It is much better to restrict the search to reliable sources with a mass readership. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I would suggest that we should keep the old fooian form, if there are at least 100 articles on old boys AND your GNews research produced at least 40 hits for Old fooian or old fooians (excluding references to sports clubs and other false positives), unless it is ambiguous. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Peter, I am wary of setting any sort of numerical threshold, because it is unavoidably arbitrary. Why 40 hits and not 400? or 4000? Why 100 articles and not 1000?
My view on this is that since the Old Fooian terms are non-obvious to anyone unfamiliar with each particular one, they make very bad category names unless that particular term is very widely used. Categories are navigational devices, so to make them most useful to our readers we should use the most recognisable term. There's no way that a jargon term with a mere 40 Gnews hits is going to be anywhere near as widely recognisable as the the plain English format People educated at Foo. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly oppose -- I do not agree that Eton is a unique case. It is certainly the most prominent, but coming along behind there are Winchester, Harrow, Shrewsbury, Marlborough, Westminster and a few more, whose "old boys" terms should be kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I certainly don't think that Eton is unique, although it has previously been suggested that both Eton and Harrow have a level of shared uniqueness that would set them aside from other, lesser, schools. If you think that Old Wykehamists, Old Salopians, Old Marlburians & Old Westminsters should be treated equally, then I can understand that - but why not Ampleforth, Downside or Sedbergh equally - all highly notable schools of equal standing to those you list, yet already renamed, and often without even a redirect or a note in the infobox to explain. Where should this line of "super notable" be drawn?
As above, I'm against all of these renames. But far more than that, I'm against the idea the some schools get to choose the name of their alumni, whilst others do not.
Once again, I'm also unimpressed by the technique of attrition that has been used here, to rename the less well-known schools first, ignoring the high-profile ones, until a precedent has been established. If we wouldn't enforce this rename on Eton, Rugby or Harrow, we shouldn't enforce it on any notable school. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I have been voting on these selectively, on the basis that the major public schools, with a substantial number of significant old boys. I believe I voted (unsuccessfully) to keep the Ampleforth category. Initially, I was voting to keep them all, but have been persuaded that we should not if (1) the identity of the school is not clear (and I make an exception for Old Wykehamists here) or (2) it is ambiguous, because the same term is used by several schools (most notably "Old Edwardians", which sparked this debate) or (3) evidence of wide usage cannot be found. I did say, "and a few more" and would certainly add Rugby to my list; I would have liked to keep Chaterhouse (Old Carthusians), but think that has already gone. I have changed my vote on "Christ's Hospital Old Blues", after it being pointed out that CHOB was the correct term; I initially voted on the basis that the correct name would be "Old Blues", which would be hopelessly ambiguous. There is some discussion of this on my talk page, which you are welcome to add to.
Your argument as to "any notable school" does not work, because the consensus is that all High Schools are notable. If there are enough notable alumni, they are certainly entitled to have an alumni category, but this should be "people educated at foo", except for the most notable major public schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
I think we're broadly in agreement, although I'm now reduced to arguing the consistency card instead as second-best, as "Old Cakeians" seems to be a lost cause.
"any notable school" was of course the wrong phrase (as you point out), but I couldn't think of one better. Personally I attended the cathedral choir school - clearly notable, many notable alumni, some with articles here - yet I can't ever recall having a collective noun of our own. This would not be a case for such a named category - only those where there is at least some attempt to indicate a specific name would apply.
As for confusion, then what of it? Category:Old Cakeians would have a link to St Cake's School in the head. "Old Edwardians" simply disambiguates as "Old Edwardians (Neasden)", same as for articles. Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
@Peterkingiron, part of your rationale which doesn't make sense to me. Why exactly do you think should "the most notable major public schools" be treated differently to other schools?
I cannot see that the question of whether they are public schools, grammar schools, comprehensives, secondary moderns or whatever has any bearing at all. So I'll assume that what you mean "the most notable schools".
Categories are a navigational device rather than a form of content, and what we are trying to do here is to select a category name which will help readers to understand what the category contains. So in what way does the status or notability of the school have any bearing on the merits of using a different term for a category name relating to the school? I can see that it could well relate to the question of whether we should have such a category at all, but I can find nothing in any of Wikipedia's naming policies to support the view that inhouse jargon should be used simply because it relates to something else which is well-known under a difft name. If I have missed something in the naming policies, please can you point it out?
WP:TITLE stresses recognisability as a key aim of page titles. If a school is very well known, surely that is a good reason to use its highly-recognisable name in a descriptive phrase, rather than the much-less widely used Old Fooian term? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The current news hits may be distorted by coverage of Old Harrovian Neil Heywood's death, but they indicate that the term is widely used and understood. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • rename I agree with many of the reasons provided above. Unfortunately, once we started down this path, to not finish the job reeks of favoritism (school X only have 4000 google hits, that's not enough, but this school has 100,000, so that one is ok) I'd say consistency, in spite of Oscar Wilde, is the best route here. If some school can't have their special 'old fooian' name, then none should. Also fwiw, I'm not from the UK, and I had no idea what any of these meant - even Old Etonians. I could have hazarded a guess, but these terms are really not as common outside of the UK as you all think they are in spite of google hits. So, rename, and keep a redirect. Or, we go back the other way, and let everyone call their alumni whatever they wish and not be petty about making CfDs. Either way, but the route of excluding 'famous' schools? Doesn't seem fair.-- KarlB ( talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom and per common sense and no special exceptions for anybody. Snappy ( talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support ... in for a pound. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support we do not show deference for the top schools. We have reached a point where it is clear all English schools categories should be using "people educated at foo". There is no reason to have any exceptions to this rule. We should rename everything. Anything less and we might as well go back to the mess we had in January of 2011. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support. The case is now compelling for total consistency for these categories. Yes, the term "Old Harrovian" is often used and it will continue to be used on wikipedia in articles where it belongs. It should not be used for this category. Also, this has got nothing to do with telling schools what to call their old boys. I'm still an "Old Edwardian" but I came to see that that was not the best way to name categories. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support for renaming to the clear, concise, non-confusing, non-jargony, standardised-format name. There is no reason for there to be any article at "Old Fooians" instead of "People educated at Foo" other than WP:ILIKEIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The only purpose of a category is to categorize. The name of this one is based on the correct, and indeed the only, name for the group of people in question. It is unambiguous and well-known. There is no good reason why a massive uniformity should be imposed on all such "former pupils" categories. Moonraker ( talk) 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Moonraker repeats 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Sure, navigation is the central purpose of categories, but that need not be the only purpose. There is also education: this ancillary benefit occurs with technical terms in diverse fields such as science and film-making, so why not keep widely-used terms for college alumni? An occasional ancillary effect, not directly relevant here, is entertainment; I can think of at least one category that is set up in a directly amusing way, but shall not name it here. However, that reminds me that renaming this category would makes it that bit harder for people to get jokes about them, like the posh boy Eamonn Oldarrovian. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    OK, we agree that navigation is the central purpose of categories, and i am also happy to agree that education is an ancilliary benefit. That's why the "Old Fooian" terms are explained in hatnotes inside the categories, as well as in the head articles on the schools themselves. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. I agree with User:Bduke that the case for renaming all of these categories for purposes of standardisation is compelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per WP:commonname and WP:TITLECHANGES. There do not appear to be any sources for the proposed name, so the proposed name is contrary to wikipedia policies of using sourced material. There is widespread use of the current name in the media. Unlike the term Londoner, which can mean a person living in London or a person from London, Old Harrovian is a precisely defined term, thus any references to discussions about demonyms is irrelevant to this discussion. Standardisation does not appear to be a Wikipedia policy and does not reflect the different terminology used by different schools. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:NDESC, the proposed rename is to a descriptive title which incorporates the sourced common name of the school, but prefixing it with a plain English phrase. The same descriptive format is now used for about 98% of the @1,035 ppl-by-school categories in the UK, having been adopted at over 79 separate CfDs.
    Cjc13's claim that this rename is contrary to policy is plain nonsense: a) the use of descriptive titles is explicitly permitted by WP:NDESC; b) the new is title sourced, by using the sourced common name of the school; c) WP:TITLECHANGES is irrelevant.
    For example, WP:TITLECHANGES:
    • discourages changes for "the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another". I see no sourced evidence that these titles are controversial, but if it is taken to refer to controversy between editors then WP:TITLECHANGES says that "potentially controversial proposal to change a title" should be discussed rather than being done unilaterally, and that's just what is happening here.
    • says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed", but there is a very good reason to change this title, as set out above -- to adopt a consistent, clear, jargon-free format which does require the reader to have no specialist knowledge of the school's inhouse terminology.
    Cjc13 also says that the issue of using descriptive titles for city and town categories (such as Category:People from Londonis irrelevant. That's wrong for two reasons: i) the use of a descriptive title for tens of thousands of People-from-Foo categories shows that descriptive titles are acceptable for Wikipedia categories; ii) the alleged ambiguity was not the reason for renaming Category:Londoners, and Cjc13 is simply inventing a post-facto rationale. The actual reason was consistency, as you can see in the 2006 CfD where it was renamed.
    It's a pity that Chjc13 continues to trot out the same nonsense at many similar discussions. If he is sincere in his belief that the use of a descriptive title for tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories is contrary to policy, and that school alumni categories should not use a descriptive format, then he should open a WP:DRV of some of the other Old Fooians CfDs. I suggested this sometime ago, but he has not done so. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Describing someone's reasoned contribution as "nonsense" is unhelpful and disrespectful under WP:GOODFAITH. I would hope you wish to withdraw that comment. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • When the "reasons" set out are nonsense, and have been repeatedly shown to be nonsense, I prefer to follow WP:SPADE. Cjc13 has spammed this nonsense into dozens of CfDs, and continues to do so even when he is proven to be wrong on points of fact. He tried challenging the decisions of a closing admin, but got nowhere, and has been repeatedly advised that if he sincerely believes that there is has been a massive and repeated breach of policy, then he should open a WP:DRV. Instead of using that available mechanism, he tendentiously repeats the same set of nonsense at many discussions ... and per WP:AGF, I am not required to sustain an assumption of good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • A less gentle man than myself could say that you have "spammed this nonsense into dozens of CfDs" - your vitriol against Cjc13 is highly visible. I agree with Jpbowen - plz cut down on the accusations of 'nonsense' 'silly' 'childish' etc, focus on making defensible points, let the arguments stand for themselves. He cites policy to back up his points, you cite policy to back up yours - no need to call his interpretation nonsense, just say you disagree. Remember, in a consensus based process, the point is not who is 'right' or what you have 'proved', the point is to bring others to your side. So here is my point: (from WP:SPADE "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks" -- KarlB ( talk) 16:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • BHG, the bit you missed out of WP:TITLECHANGES is:
"Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names".
This is very relevant and is consistent with Wikipedia:No original research. In this case it means that names should be sourced. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment I have no idea what an old harrovian is. this stuff is way too UK-centric. rename. -- KarlB ( talk) 15:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It is a UK school, so should it not use a UK name? Cjc13 ( talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per much of the above and in for a penny, in for a pound et al. We're at the stage where the question is whether this should be an exception to the general format, not whether the general format should be used or not. A self-explanatory category that is consistent with its fellows is better than making an exception and retaining the demonym. We've rejected demonyms for cities so why retain them here? Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Because unlike demonyms for cities which could mean for instance people from or people living in those cities, these demonyms are precisely defined. Cjc13 ( talk) 13:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename chiefly because the new name will be more easily understood by readers who are perhaps unfamiliar with the naming conventions in this field.  pablo 10:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Per WP:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Cjc13 ( talk) 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply
As has been shown multiple times, and has been admitted by the defenders of these categories, the old fooian form is not the one used by or known to most inhabitants of England. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:48, 3 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:People who have portrayed vampires

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) 10:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Category:People who have portrayed vampires ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm sorry but this category is an subjection, slippery slope category that can be subject to abuse and a pure violation of WP:OC#TRIVIAL, there's no evidence that none of these people are notable because they potrayed a vampire with maybe a couple of exceptions. Delete Secret account 06:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the category is to create an organized list of people who have contributed in some way to a pop culture phenomena (aka portrayal of vampires, which often contributes to fame and infamy). It is not to say that they are all notable for doing so, only that they have participated in and contributed to the phenomena. I believe the list is necessary as a method to further organize a sub-category of fiction, as part of WP Fictional Characters, WP Film, WP Horror, and WP TV. I also do not think that the list is so vast that it can't be organized. Writerchic99 ( talk) 07:00, 15 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.

Irish emigrants to the United States

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 rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Irish emigrants to the United States to Category:Republic of Ireland emigrants to the United States. (note, I should have pointed out that Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923) exists, I guess I assumed people knew this, or would go to check the category. The division of this category by time of emigration has been done, and was done several years ago. It seems that most of the initial responses to this nomination ignore this crucial piece of information. I would like to apologize for this oversight. I think the realisation that the other category exists will aid much in the discussion.) John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Nominator's rationale This reflects the fact that the article for the country in question is at Republic of Ireland. This follows similar precedents from such categories as Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo emigrants to the United States. It also follows the precedent show in the Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States/ Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States/ Category:Russian emigrants to the United States and related categories. We further have Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923). However having Irish emigrants to the United States as a current option will lead to misplacment of pre-1923 emigrants in this category. Whether or not we should also have Category:Irish Free State emigrants to the United States I do not know, but I would say we can realistically use Republic of Ireland as a workable designation for the country from 1923 on, but some may disagree with me. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Object A quick look at the categories in Category:Immigrants to the United States shows the category appears to be correctly named. The name of the country is Ireland, and the demonym is Irish. The Congo comparison appears to be invalid, as both Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo both use Congolese as a demonym, thus rending it not particularly useful for a category name. I don't understand why we have a pre-1923 category anyway, it's that category that really should be the subject of a CFD. 2 lines of K 303 09:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment if you look at the rule on the page on category names that Mr. Kingiron so kingly linked to on the next discussion you will see that the same set of rules that says "use Democratic Republic of the Congo" also says "use Republic of Ireland". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Once again people, the name of the country is Ireland. We use Republic of Ireland as a good compromise for disambiguation (like when we're also talking about Northern Ireland), but we don't use it otherwise. We certainly don't/shouldn't use it in cases like this. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment so Mr. HighKing, you are saying that this category should be limited to people from the county of Ireland (aka Republic of Ireland)? Why exactly is it not useful to disambiguate from those who came from Northern Ireland, and why is it not worth disambiguating from the seperate category for those who came before 1923. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive. The nomination ignores a whole bunch of factors relating to Ireland, and by making a series of similar nominations the nonminator appears to be trying to indulge in a piecemeal demolition of the existing structure of Irish categories. Since the nominator's objection is clearly to the general existence of Foo in Ireland categories containing subcats for Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland, then per WP:MULTI this should be handled by a centralised discussion rather than by piecemeal nominations which replicate the same points. Please not that the whole question of names related to things from Ireland is a highly controversial area, subject to arbcom restrictions. Unless the nominator tackles tackles these issues in a less disruptive way, I will seek to have those restrictions applied here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Comment This is not related to any other nominations. This category is clearly as it currently exists meant to be for those who emigrated from the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland to the United States from 1923 on. That is why there is a seperate Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (pre-1923) category. The division between the categories exists, the only question is how best to name the divisions of the categories. This is a rename nomination, not a nomination to change the intended use of the category in any way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose These are simply two different groups, one being a very small subset of the other. The majority of Irish emigration to the US pre-dated the split from England. The nom's rationale that, "the article for the country in question is at Republic of Ireland." is completely unrelated. The blunt rename, as nominated, would be simply anachronistic.
There does not seem to be any significant political aspect to emigration before or after this date. I see no virtue to splitting the category to sub-categories by date: that would be valid and possible (although time-consuming), but I see no value gained by doing it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • All emigration is based on political situation. Anyway, as things are now, we do seperate based on 1923. That is the status quo. That is how things are being done. This nomination is not proposing that we institute doing such a thing, that is what we already are doing. We already are distinguishing people by the date at which they emigrated from Ireland. That is a fait acompli. The question is "should we name the category in a way that makes this clear or should we leave it in its current ambiguous state?" John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • oppose nationalities are different than immovable objects, so I don't think the same standards apply. I think a broader discussion about nationalities, and how to classify someone, is warranted vs piecemeal noms around various ethnic/national categories. -- KarlB ( talk) 14:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- The largest wave of immigration was during and after the great famine, long before the 1922 partition. RoI should be reserved for things concerning the post-1922 nation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
There is a discussion taking place elsewhere on the policy on categorising partitioned countries. Nominatiuons such as this are disruptive. You should wait for the discussion to reach a consensus. After that, I hope we can have a new guidleline written and have some global nominations. Administrative quick closure. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The underlying issue raised is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. PLease defer further nominations until a consensus is reached. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
Thanks Peter. Although, I should note, I have asked (not sure if it was agreed and certainly not that my requests are binding) that the discussion in question not cover nationalities/ethnicities/religions/genders/sexuality/etc of people, and rather focus on categorization of objects - the reason being, nationality/ethnicity is a much bigger/more complex subject, and much more personal, whereas the location of a mosque is, well, the location of a mosque - a person from country X may indeed be a Xian, or a Yian, but a mosque in country X is most certainly in country X, so physical objects have a certainty about them that I think will help us get to consensus. If you agree with dividing these discussions, I'd appreciate you putting a word there, and perhaps proposing another place (or at least section) for the nationality discussion. My preference would be to wait however. If you disagree, and think we should discuss it all as one big thing, then I guess you should put that there too. Thanks! -- KarlB ( talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The under-lying issue raised has nothing to do with when the "vast wave of emigration" to the United States was. What you are missing is that Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923) is a category that exists. The way things are currently set up the category Category:Irish emigrants to the United States is functionally Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (after 1923) that is how the category is currently working. I did not set it up this way. That is the work of someone else. I did a very small part of the work on making sure people were in the appropriate category, but that is another story. Anyway, the nomination Mr. Kingiron mentions has ran into the fact that people are telling me "do not discuss nationality here". So they do not want to talk about the issue here. However that is all only possible if you ignore the fact that Category:Irish emigrants to the Untied States (before 1923) actually exists. The work of division has been done, the category is currently RoI/IFS emigrants to the United States. The only question is "should we call these people Irish, and make it likely that people will be put here when the categories are they currently exist function to put them somewhere else"? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Very Important Point There is a key point that all the above responses to the nomination seem to have overlooked. Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923) exists. This category is already for the most part limited to those emigrants after 1923. Whether or not we should divide at that point is not the issue under discussion in this nomination. That is actually a decision already made. The question here is whether "Irish" can stand in for a category that is meant for people coming from the Republic of Ireland to the United States from the point at which the former was no longer part of the United Kingdom. HighKing might have a valid point that it can, especially if we were more consistent in universally applying the rule of categorizing emigration only by sending and recieving nation. This actually has some validity to it. However Category:British immigrants to the United States would then be a very large category. Even then the pre-1801 emigrants from the Kingdom of Ireland would seem to properly be put in a distinct category, but they are not as large a group as those who came after that year. However right now the assumption seems to be 1-England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were always clearly distinct enought to class emigrants as coming from these areas. 2- Category:British emigrants to the United States at some level seems to function as a catchall for those who came from any at least current place under the control of the United Kingdom to the US, at least when that place was under United Kingdom control, that is to say we do not categorize those who emigrated from British India or even the crown colony of Hong Kong to the US under this category, but we do put Category:Bermudian emigrants to the United States in that category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 16 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.

Organisations based in Ireland

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 rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Organisations based in Ireland to Category:Organisations based in the Republic of Ireland
  • Nominator's rationale This is a subcategory of Category:Organizations by country. The guidelines on category by country naming states "For "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country". In this case the article name of the country is Republic of Ireland. The article Ireland is about an island. We do not categorize organisations based on the island from which they are based, we categorize them based on the country where they are located. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive. The nominator proposes renaming one extant category to another which already exists, which is a logical nonsense. The effect of the proposal is actually a bizarre downmerger.
    The nomination ignores a whole bunch of factors relating to Ireland, and by making a series of similar nominations he appears to be trying to indulge in a piecemeal demolition of the existing structure of Irish categories. Since the nominator's objection is clearly to the general existence of Foo in Ireland categories containing subcats for Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland, this should be handled by a centralised discussion rather than by piecemeal nominations which replicate the same points. Please not that the whole question of names related to things from Ireland is a highly controversial area, subject to arbcom restrictions. Unless the nominator tackles tackles these issues n a less disruptive way, I will seek to have those restrictions applied here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per BHG but also, owing to the unique nature of Ireland, a goodly number or organizations operate on an all-island or cross-border basis. For example, Commissioners of Irish Lights, Engineers Without Borders (Ireland), Geographical Society of Ireland, etc. -- HighKing ( talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this is an absurd nom. One doesn't need to look far to find organisations in Northern Ireland in Category:Organisations based in Ireland. Oculi ( talk) 14:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • keep But this category should mainly be a 'container' category for all organizations, and most should be diffused to the appropriate country. Help from eds who oppose this nomination would be appreciated. I think it would be useful to list at the top of this category that only organizations that operate on a 'all ireland' basis (and a clear explanation of what this means, and what the criteria for 'all-ireland' are), so people know what they're looking at when they look at this category. Another option would be to rename this category, to All Ireland organizations since that seems to be what people are saying belongs here. -- KarlB ( talk) 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep; the parent Category:Ireland has the same category structure for many other subject areas. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. This category is appropriate where there are all-Ireland organisations, but the category should explicitly be limited to such (by measn of a head note). The wider the underlying issue is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. PLease defer further nominations until a consensus is reached. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • 'Withdrawal but on issues that are not exactly explained. There is no reason that Republic of Ireland should be under a category that is for an island. Do we put Category:Organization in East Timor under Category:Organizations in Timor. The problem here is also not in my view a result of issues related to trans-national organisations. Organizations are categoriezed by where they are "based". If an organization is "based" in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland it could be in both categories. The problem is that organizations are time specific, they are made up of people working together, they are not physical things like houses and bridges. There is a reason why we have Category:Organizations based in the Soviet Union. Thus at least in theory we should have a seperate category for things that pre-date the formation of the Republic of Ireland and Norther Ireland. Do we have Category:Organisations based in the Irish Free state? That is clearly a possible name. However the case of pre-1923 Ireland is even more complexed. As can be seen by the current (though under discussion for change) set of categories Category:Irish emigrants to the United States and Category:Irish emigrants to the United States (before 1923) the default assumption of many people (despite our directives otherwise) is that Ireland/Irish refer to the Republic of Ireland. It would seem if we want a pre-1923 category we should name it in such a way. I am not sure that the (pre-1923) method in the emigration category is the best way (and I was not the person who came up with that idea) but it is one possibility. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:36, 16 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.

Halls of Fame in Ireland

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 ROI subcategory, then recreate as parent. This could easily be overturned by a wider discussion.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Halls of fame in Ireland to Category:Halls of fame in the Republic of Ireland
  • Nominator's rationale This category countains one entry, that is in Dublin and was founded in 1999. We categorize places by the modern nation state in which they are in. The accepted formate is to use "Republic of Ireland" to designate things connected with the modern nation state with that name. As far as I can tell this is what we are trying to do here, and so we should reflect this fact in the category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the central point related to this naming is "For "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country," The article about the country here is Republic of Ireland. The article Ireland is about the island. We do not categorize Halls of Fame by the physical feature on which they are located. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive. The nomination ignores a whole bunch of factors relating to Ireland, and by making a series of similar nominations he appears to be trying to indulge in a piecemeal demolition of the existing structure of Irish categories. Since the nominator's objection is clearly to the general existence of Foo in Ireland categories containing subcats for Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland, then per WP:MULTI this should be handled by a centralised discussion rather than by piecemeal nominations which replicate the same points. Please not that the whole question of names related to things from Ireland is a highly controversial area, subject to arbcom restrictions. Unless the nominator tackles tackles these issues in a less disruptive way, I will seek to have those restrictions applied here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • support Again, these noms are not all the same thing, and this one should be a speedy rename. This category was created all of 3 days ago! There are no subcats, and no northern Irish halls of fame. Renaming to 'RoI' seems reasonable and in line with the "scheme" in place. -- KarlB ( talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Unfortunately, Karl's reply illustrates rather well why I think this nomination should be closed, and discussion centralised. The basic structure of Irish categories is that "foo in Ireland" contains "foo in Northern Ireland" and "foo in the Republic of Ireland" sub-categories ... so the solution in this case is simply to subcat those in the Republic. Of course, JPL has decided that he doesn't want any "foo in Ireland" categories, and this is just one of several which he had selected for a disruptive series of separate discussions on the same issue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    It's amazing how you are willing to defend so vociferously a category which didn't exist 3 days ago, containing a single forlorn article about a Hall of fame that is, as it turns out, closed! If the editor in question had simply named it Category:Halls of fame in the Republic of Ireland in the first place, it's quite likely no-one would have noticed (or cared) for quite some time. How do I know this? Because I calculate there are hundreds of categories exactly like this - no 'Irish' father, no 'northern Irish' Brother. So why does it matter so much? The proposed rename is making it more precise, not less. Father/brother cats can always be created later, once the need presents itself. -- KarlB ( talk) 22:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    Some examples, I got bored after c...
  • Industrial schools in the Republic of Ireland
  • Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland
  • Radio personalities from the Republic of Ireland
  • AIDS-related deaths in the Republic of Ireland
  • Active naval ships of the Republic of Ireland
  • Active patrol vessels of the Republic of Ireland
  • Active ships of the Republic of Ireland
  • Airlines of the Republic of Ireland
  • Alcohol-related deaths in the Republic of Ireland
  • Anarchism in the Republic of Ireland
  • Anarchist organisations in the Republic of Ireland
  • Archaeological sites in the Republic of Ireland by county
  • Architects from Northern Ireland (no RoI brother)
  • Archives in Northern Ireland
  • Association football competitions in the Republic of Ireland
  • Association football leagues in the Republic of Ireland
  • Association footballers in the Republic of Ireland (no Irish father -awww)
  • Benedictine monasteries in the Republic of Ireland
  • Biographical museums in the Republic of Ireland
  • Biosphere reserves of the Republic of Ireland
  • Book censorship in the Republic of Ireland
  • Border crossings of the Republic of Ireland
  • Bus companies of the Republic of Ireland (no irish father :()
  • Business schools in the Republic of Ireland
  • By-elections in the Republic of Ireland
  • Cardiovascular disease deaths in the Republic of Ireland
  • Censorship in the Republic of Ireland
  • Chapels in the Republic of Ireland
  • Borders of the Republic of Ireland
    • If it's really important to you and to Project Ireland to fix this straight away, let me know and I will tell you the clever algorithm I developed to sort this out. -- KarlB ( talk) 22:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • What on earth is all this silliness designed to achieve? There are plenty of cases where the structure has not been filled out, but there is no WP:DEADLINE. I suggest that you read WP:DEMOLISH and help to fill in the gaps rather than trying to wreck the existing structure.
        As to the rest, I looked initailly at the second item in your list, Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland‎. It has a parent Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland‎ and a sister Category:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland‎. Whatever algorithm you are using, it is broken ... and if you were trying to do something useful rather than just WP:DEMOLISH, you would have linked the categoreies to make them clickable.
        As to the others, thanks for the list of gaps, which I will now set about filling, as I have just done with Category:By-elections in Ireland -- take a look at its three sub-cats for an example of why Ireland's complex historical and present arrangements requires an all-Ireland category tree.
        Also please note that the nominator of this category has been systematically vandalising Irish categories by removing them from all-Ireland categories: e.g. [2], [3], [4]. I will now set about reverting this deliberate depopulation of categories, but in the meantime please note that the nominator is busy creating the situation you are decrying. Please, for goodness sake, would the pair of you stop this childish game-playing of randomly picking apart an existing category system and then decrying the existence of holes in it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
        • I haven't destroyed anything while it was being built, I haven't deleted or unlinked or destroyed anything, so please go easy on the accusations and the language. Also I'd kindly ask that you don't call me childish. Any nomination or vote I've made, I've made in good faith. Neither you, nor wikiproject Ireland, own these categories, and I'm afraid we just disagree on issues of structure. That's what CfD is for. But I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me silly, or childish, or snipe at me because I forgot to link a few cats.-- KarlB ( talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support, there is no need for an island-wide parent category in this case. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support in this case, but the underlying issue is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. PLease defer further nominations until a consensus is reached. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Commment By reading the rules we have on naming categories I have realized that we should have very fesw "Foo in Ireland" categories. The rules on naming categories clearly state that if we are naming by country we should have "Foo in the Republic of Ireland". This decision is not based on some whim of mine, but on an actual application of the standing directives. To call such nominations "disruptive" or other similar adjectives is to act like they reflect something other than the fact. If we accept that "Republic of Ireland" is the correct term, which is what we currently do with the category names, than we should name "by country" categories in a manner that reflects this acceptance. If people think that the proper name of the country is something else, than they are welcome to seek to rename the article. However the article is at present Republic of Ireland. I am now attacked as "disruptive" because I quote policy that clearly states we should be naming by country categories after the country in question, and the article on the country in question is without debate at Republic of Ireland. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Using the multi rule to force mass nominations is just an excuse to avoid discussing the real issue. The fact of the matter is that there is one article in this category, it is for something in the Republic of Ireland that has only ever been in the Republic of Ireland. There is no reason at all that it should be in a category other than the proposed name. Other places are a different issue, because other places often pre-date the formation of the Republic of Ireland. This is a clear cut case of not doing so, and as such should be considered on its unique and individual merits. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think the fact that the same person has held different views on the proper results in varried discussions on the Ireland issue shows that the claim that all Ireland/Irish related categories should be discussed as one whole is flawed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - should be discussed as part of a wider debate on the category tree, not taking potshots at part of it. Snappy ( talk) 20:50, 23 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.

1958 establishments in Ireland

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 rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:1958 establishments in Ireland to Category:1958 establishments in the Republic of Ireland
  • Nominator's rationale It seems we do year established by country based on the political boundaries of countries. It is also fairly clear we use Republic of Ireland to refer to the modern nation-state. This seems to be the right way to do things here. I could have proposed all the other establishments by year cats from 1923 on for Ireland, but I did not feel like it. Also, it would have required making sure that no Northern Ireland items were in the categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive. The nomination ignores a whole bunch of factors relating to Ireland, and by making a series of similar nominations he appears to be trying to indulge in a piecemeal demolition of the existing structure of Irish categories. Since the nominator's objection is clearly to the general existence of Foo in Ireland categories containing subcats for Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland, this should be handled by a centralised discussion rather than by piecemeal nominations which replicate the same points. Please not that the whole question of names related to things from Ireland is a highly controversial area, subject to arbcom restrictions. Unless the nominator tackles tackles these issues n a less disruptive way, I will seek to have those restrictions applied here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive -- The underlying issue is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. PLease defer further nominations until a consensus is reached. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment how can you "speedy close as disruptive and single action" a nomination that is phrased as a test nomination? A good number of the potential post-1923 by year established categories for Ireland do not as yet exist. Thus there is incentive to have the discussion now, and it will make things easier if we do, since of late there have been movements to create more of these categories. Different categories have different types of schema. For example we have Category:1958 establishments in Yugoslavia we do not have Category:Hosptials in Yugoslavia. The by year categories take into account how things were in that year. On the other hand, since they are year specific there is an argument that we can more safely use "Ireland" for a limited area in 1958 than we can when we apply it to places. This is inherently a test category for the by year categories, but with potentially 60 or so just from the end of the Irish Free State, the Irish Free State introduces even more complexities in the discussion and so clearly needs to be considered seperately (even if we do come to the same result), insisting on a mass nomination before considering the matter seems really to be a method of avoiding discussion at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually the Republic of Ireland has existed since 1937, so from 1938 on we can apply this category. This makes the nominations in question even more overwhelming. If we can do Category:Salvador Dali paintings as a test nomination, then why not this random year? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment This is a tricky one. I'd actually vote to kill this whole category tree, and turn it into lists; the categories are extremely unhelpful, you have hundreds of cats with only a single item in them. In this case, what happens in other countries may be instructive - for example, for China, Hong Kong gets separated out. For korea post 1945, North Korea gets its own section. In Germany, east and west get separated out, but there is also a whole 'establishments in west germany' tree. So it goes back to the bigger question, as Peter points out, of how do we classify things? We seem to be in agreement that a Cathedral, even though built under a different government, goes in the country where it currently sits. But do we list a church built in the 12th century in the north of the isle of Ireland under 'UK' since that is now where it sits? It seems we're maintaining a sort of cohesive 'historical/cultural' notion (like Ireland, China, Korea, etc) for the past, but I'm not sure that means we should maintain it into the future - at the very least, RoI should be sub-catted. -- KarlB ( talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - should be discussed as part of a wider debate on the category tree, not taking potshots at part of it. Snappy ( talk)
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.

Academic Libraries in Ireland

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. It is not surprising that these nominations led to different results. There is a larger discussion going on, and when it is resolved, this can be opened again.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Academic libraries in Ireland to Category:Academic libraries in the Republic of Ireland
  • Nominator's rationale all entries in this category at present are in the Republic of Ireland. It seems that the consensus is to use Republic of Ireland when speaking of the modern nation state. This should be reflected in the category name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as disruptive. The nomination ignores a whole bunch of factors relating to Ireland, and by making a series of similar nominations he appears to be trying to indulge in a piecemeal demolition of the existing structure of Irish categories. Since the nominator's objection is clearly to the general existence of Foo in Ireland categories containing subcats for Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland, this should be handled by a centralised discussion rather than by piecemeal nominations which replicate the same points. Please not that the whole question of names related to things from Ireland is a highly controversial area, subject to arbcom restrictions. Unless the nominator tackles tackles these issues n a less disruptive way, I will seek to have those restrictions applied here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • support These noms aren't all the same, and I don't think they're "disruptive". This one, I support. If there is a need to recreate the I/RoI/NI trinity for Academic libraries in the future c'est la vie, but in the meantime, this is just a category that is named incorrectly per the categorization scheme in place and the naming consensus on Ireland articles Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles. Unfortunately the MoS doesn't explain the category system, but it is clear that the nation-state remains at RoI, so we are assuming that sub-cats of RoI should be similarly named. As I demonstrated in another discussion, there also doesn't seem to be a consensus that for every Category:Foo in RoI there must be an equivalent Category:Foo in NI category if there aren't any articles to populate it. In this particular case, this cat is in the RoI tree, and all libraries within are in RoI. Another option would be to simply create Category:Academic Libraries in the Republic of Ireland, and move the articles underneath, which is what BrownHairedGirl and I recently did with Category:Teaching hospitals in Ireland, Category:Teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland, and Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland (which I have now populated with about 5 hospitals!). In any case, by voting for this nom I am not suggesting that 'in Ireland' categories cannot exist, just that this particular one doesn't need to.
    • comment I would note that there are at least 56 categories within the Category:Republic of Ireland tree that are named this way (i.e. 'in Ireland'), and probably many hundreds more in the Category:Ireland tree that mainly refer to things in RoI, so you may want to take your time and go back and make a single nomination, to bring them in line with the defined Ireland naming policies (which, for cats, should be written down btw). -- KarlB ( talk) 14:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Factually the present content concerns RoI. We may need an equivalent NI category. If this one is accepted, not doubt some one will tackle the other 56 categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
The underlying issue is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. PLease defer further nominations until a consensus is reached. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another way to look at this category is as one of the 20 direct sub-cats of Category:Academic libraries. All other subcats of that category use the relavant country names. They do not even agree on the "Academic Library" form, but every other category uses the accepted country name. Thus this nomination works to put this category in line with all its sister Academic Library categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - should be discussed as part of a wider debate on the category tree, not taking potshots at part of it. Snappy ( talk)
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.

Virginia Colonial people

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) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Category:Kentucky colonial people to Category:Virginia colonial people
  • Nominator's rationale during colonial times those operating on the interest of British power in Kentucky were clearly doing so under the auspices of the Colony of Virginia. There was no Colony of Kentucky and to make a category that suggests there was is to perpetuate anachronism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we are going to categorize people by historical time period and place we need to categorize them by places that exited then. There is a reason why we do not have Category:18th century Israeli writers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if this is a geographic distinction, then there is no problem with the current category. If it is jurisdictional distinction, shouldn't it be "British colonial people in Kentucky" ? 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not change The category clearly states the inclusion criteria to be "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Kentucky." This is a geographic distinction based on where the people in the category were born or were notable. It is part of the history of Kentucky. See the parent categories. Hmains ( talk) 14:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I accept that the present category is objectionable, but I suspect that something similar could be achieved by renaming to Category:Settlers in Kentucky before 1792. I chose that date becasue it was when Kentucky was admitted to the union. We had a discussion some time back about settlers in Utah and some of the other western territories, before they became part of the Union, but I am not sure what itys outcome was. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctant Keep A think a lot of these considred themselves to be in Transylvania (colony), although only two-- James John Floyd and Henry Scaggs--make that explicit so I'm reluctant to propose Category:Transylvania (colony) poeple quite yet. Honestly, I'm conceptually in favor of cleaning out this anachronistic category up but most the articles seem to say the people were in Kentucky without clarifying if they were under the influence of Virginia, Transylavania or were just mountain men in unorganized Indian territory. I understand many colonial maps went far west but on the ground many of these people were really in Cherokee territory. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:02, 16 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.

West Virginia in the American Revolution

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 both as nominated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Category:West Virginia in the American Revolution to Category:Virginia in the American Revolution
  • Upmerge Category:People of West Virginia in the American Revolution to Category:People of Virginia in the American Revolution
  • Nominator's rationale To speak of "West Virginia" before the United States Civil War is pure anachronism. The boundaries drawn for West Virginia were the result of large scale aspirations by the founders of the state. They included several counties that would not have been put in the state if the criteria had been including only counties clearly loyal to the Union. If we go back the 80 years to the American Revolution the situation is even more complexed. The county lines that existed in 1860 did not exist then, so many of the counties included parts of what is today Virginia and West Virginia. The current line would not make any sense at the time. In fact to make things more fun, there the line between Virginia and Pennsylvania west of the Appalachians was in dispute. There were men based out the city now known as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who were acting as Virginia officials upholding the laws of Virginia. There was absolutely no sense in which West Virginia existed. There is no reason to have this category which imposes an artificial, modern set of sepearations on people who lived over 200 years ago. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment but the territory West Virginia occupies existed then. So it is a useful breakdown for present users. If kept, it should be a subcategory of Virginia for the pre-Civil War period. 70.24.248.211 ( talk) 06:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge as the state of West Virginia didn't exist back then, only as a part of Virginia. Secret account 06:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not change Nomination is confused. This is about geography and history of the area that became West Virginia--in the same way that the pre-independence history of the area of the United States is part of US history. The inclusion criteria states: "War in the area of Virginia that became West Virginia" and the articles are appropriate to this purpose. Hmains ( talk) 14:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge "West Virginia" is an anachronism in dealing with the 1770s. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hmains is 25% correct, 1 of the 4 articles-- Fort Henry (West Virginia)--is about a place in modern West Virginia associated with the war. The other 3 articles and the subcat are events during the war that occured in Virginia and people from/in Virginia during the war. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment of the 7 people in the people category, only 5 of them were clearly within the boundaries of modern West Virginia during the American Revolutionary War. One, Anne Bailey, we know was in the Shenandoah Valley, but was not definitevly in the boundaries of the modern state until 1891, 8 years after the peace treaaty ending the war was signed. The other we only can from the article definitely place in what is today Pennsylvania, although he was clearly acting on behalf of Virginia and so would belong in the Virginia category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • comment the locations and the people are all clearly involved in the area that became West Virginia. Read the articles. Hmains ( talk) 20:14, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_15&oldid=1146826505"