Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 27

< November 26	November 28 >

November 27

Category:List of English words for sounds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list, not a category. The content should be moved to List of English words for sounds or the category be renamed to Category:English words for sounds and the individual words added to it. Kusma (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to list as suggested. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Taoisigh of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Taoisigh of Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Taoiseach is the constitutional title of the prime minister created under the 1937 Constitution of Ireland, which is still the basic law of the state it created Ireland (or Éire) officially. This constitution predates the Republic of Ireland by twelve years and thus the usage of the term Republic of Ireland is not strictly valid because 1) the Taoiseach predated the Republic of Ireland by twelve years, 2) The official name of the state is Ireland and thus the constitutionally created office of Taoiseach should reflect the official name of the state and not its description Republic of Ireland. Djegan 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to accurate name. Also no problems as there is no similar title in Northern Ireland and "Taoiseach of Ireland" has already been used by Unionist leader Rev Ian Paisley, so obviously no unionist problem with the name. FearÉIREANN 20:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ryano 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for convenience, though I think that Paisley is usually careful to say "the Irish Taoiseach" --Red King 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a tough one, but we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) which calls for the name to be "of the Republic of Ireland" and I'm unsure of a policy which states we use the official name of the state, for example we use "United States" and "United Kingdom". Hiding talk 13:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I recognise that you have made a valid point, I believe we should not construct the title of an official (a proper noun) by blindly sticking to wikipedia conventions whilst dismissing and disregarding the official title. Generally "of the Republic of Ireland" is a must but I believe for instance with Category:Presidents of Ireland (cf. President of Ireland) this is an exception and that "of Ireland" is a must, see for example Template:Prime Ministers of Ireland which has worked very well and no complaints. The US and UK are two valid points but in this case the official name is longer than the common name, whilst in the case of Republic of Ireland it is shorter. Conventions are a good thing but it does not mean that at wikipedia we must live in an ivory castle; we don't set the trend, we follow it. Djegan 19:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree somewhat. Most of wikipedia policy places us in contrast to most formal convention, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common english) for an example. I don't dispute that your view is valid, much as you don't dispute mine is. I am quite willing to respect which ever view has the backing of a consensus, I just feel the policies we create on wikipedia shouldn't be disregarded without due consideration, and rather than "blindly sticking" to the convention I merely stake the policy's claim. I would imagine there is a good reason for having the policy, probably to prevent confusion, and that since the articles themselves refer to the fact that they are heads of state and of government in the Republic of Ireland, it makes sense for the categories to reflect this. Hiding talk 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If their is one overarching reason why we have that English policy it is because this wikipedia is the English one, I have even said this to several Irish contributors who pushed Irish too far in this wikipedia and told them that ga.wikipedia.org is the place for them! However getting back to the fundemental point here what we are dealing with is a proper noun and not simply generic titles thus see the current request at Category:British Prime Ministers. Their is a fundemental difference between "Prime Minister of x" (proper noun) and "prime minister of x" (common noun), this is a suttle point. If we are going to use a proper noun then we aught to take the time to get it right. We are not going to move Category:Presidents of Ireland to Category:Presidents of the Republic of Ireland or Category:Presidents of Ireland of the Republic of Ireland because this defies convention firstly. Secondly the Toiseach existed before the 1949 Republic of Ireland thus as the declaration of this republic had no effect on his status, "Republic of Ireland" is bad convention and uneccessary precision, what shall we do with people that dont fit in the current category (viz Ireland/Eire of 1937 to 1949), create a second one for good measure? Djegan 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The same thing we do in all the United Kingdom categories, which British prime ministers looks set to join, and all United States categories. I'm not arguing for unneccessary precision, I'm asking for sensible policies to be respected. It seems fair to say that Republic of Ireland is synonymous with the political state of Ireland, and it seems that there is more chance of confusion in using "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland". Are you not even prepared to acknowledge that fact? Hiding talk 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no problem with admitting that the present Taoiseach is the taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, but fundementally that is different to saying that his title is Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. Theirs a whole lot of difference. Djegan 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That convention is possibly intended as a complement to the succession of states theory, but one size does not fit all, the Republic of Ireland is simply a description of the state, not the name of the state. Djegan 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly the Republic of Ireland was only declared in 1949. The office of Taoiseach dates from 1937 and so the category does not just cover heads of governments in the Republic of Ireland. Secondly there is no such name as the Republic of Ireland. The name of the Irish state is "Éire, or in the English language, Ireland." It never has been the "Republic of Ireland". Legally that is the formal description, never the name. What you are suggesting is that a non-name from the wrong period be used in preference to the correct name covering the right period. FearÉIREANN 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean by "legally". Does that mean I am in danger of being arrested if I call it the Republic of Ireland? Would you please also respect the fact that I am proposing we follow a policy which has been considered, and not attempt to discolour my position. What I am suggesting is we consider and respect the tradition upon wikipedia, which leads us to compromise upon United Kingdom categories rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Overseas Territories, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the United States of America, or the United States of Mexico, or so on and so forth. Unless perhaps we rewrite the article on the History of the Republic of Ireland so that it begins at 1949? Why do we come to these compromises? Do we really want to start renaming articles such as Culture of Ireland to Culture of the island known as Ireland, not to be confused with the political state Ireland, which for the sake of an argument could be known by the name of Republic of Ireland, even though technically that's a description. These aren't proper nouns we're talking about here, these are descriptions. they describe where these people have been Taoiseach of, so it seems to me that it can cut both ways. I still favour following the established policy. What you are suggesting is disregarding policy and creating a potentially confusing situation. Hiding talk 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Legally there is no such place as the Republic of Ireland. There is a state called 'Éire, or in the English language Ireland' (that is how it is constitutionally phrased). Its description, not its name is the Republic of Ireland. WP uses RoI for disambigulation purposes to avoid confusion between the two Irelands, north and south. In terms of accuracy WP quite frankly screws up its own factual reliability through use of the non-existent name to cover timespans when the description, much less the name, did not exist. But that is another debate. (Many people think WP's usage flawed and unreliable.) But here it would be insane to use a non-existent name that isn't needed for disambigulation, to cover an office that existed outside the timespan of that term, when the accurate, factual term is patiently obvious and more user friendly. Preferring to use a less accurate, unnecessary and longer form, that is also misleading in its timespan, would make no sense whatsoever and would simply act as a reminder of how far, when it comes to using terminology, WP is from basic encyclopædic standards. FearÉIREANN 22:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one is asking for a widespread change in titles or categories simply one category which has used a defective naming scheme, the most confusing thing about "Taoiseach of Ireland" is "Taoiseach" - lets face it. Djegan 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~Change vote to Support for argument's sake.~~ Hiding talk 09:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with the constitutionally-conformist Category:Presidents of Ireland -- Man vyi 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons outlined in the headline paragraph and, as elequoently as ever, by FearÉIREANN above. Fergananim 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reinstating oppose vote. Sorry, but I really feel that if there is going to be a consensus to change the name used for the Irish state on Wikipedia then it needs a greater discussion than this. As I have said before, whether or not it is the right name is besides the point. We settle these issues in flawed compromise ways because that's the way we do it. Yes, that makes for a flawed encyclopedia, but can that actually be helped when there are how many people from how many countries making edits? Is a category title so important and of such informative value, or should it instead reflect the classification system chosen by Wikipedia to classify? Hiding talk 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have being through this already Hiding, this category is not about the name of the state it is about the name of an official, simple. In effect are you proposing that Category:Presidents of Ireland should be moved to that Category:Presidents of the Republic of Ireland to keep in line with wikipedia country naming policies? Djegan 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Comment Yes. Sorry. I respect your position, please do me the decency to respect mine. It may well be flawed, but who am I to choose which policy we should disregard? Hiding talk 11:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And with all due respect, it isn't about the name of the official, it is a description of what the category categorises. If we start to use the official name in categories, we will end up with a morass of a mess in the British categories for starters, and then which official name do we use for foreign countries? We implement compromise policy to solve these issues, I for one, at this moment, with sincere apologies, intend to respect that spirit of compromise and shared endeavour. Hiding talk 12:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (1) Some people seem to have an unhealthy phobia of prolepsis. I hope they don't try to edit articles about Cambodia/Kampuchea/Khmer Republic. (2) Of the 2 men who were Taoiseach before the Republic of Ireland, both were also Taoiseach afterwards. Renaming the category to include the 1937-1949 period will extend its scope by a total of zero articles. Joestynes 13:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What then if a category is created for Irish foreign ministers? Do you suggest that it be called Foreign Ministers of the Republic of Ireland when some of the people in the list were dead before the Republic of Ireland was even created and were actually ministers of the crown? In that case should Pol Pot feature in a list of Kings of Cambodia? Cromwell feature in a list of English monarchs? George W. Bush belong in a category of people who lost US presidential elections? (Oh, of course he belongs on such a list!) It is all about taking accuracy seriously and having some elementary cop-on, something all too absent in so much WP naming. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, but I want to clarify this situation, I appreciate it is somewhat provocative, but please bear with me: are you suggesting Oliver Cromwell be categorised in Category:Irish politicians? To me Cromwell would not fit in a Category:Politicians of the Republic of Ireland, but I can see someone making a strong case for listing him in Category:Politicians of Ireland. Hiding talk 18:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than rehashing the same arguments on a case-by-case basis, we really need once and for all to augment Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) — possibly splitting out a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (State of Ireland). This page can simply refer to the agreed convention, and that page can hold any debate about changes or refinements to the convention. I have no strong opinion on what the convention should be, but I've tired of people going into the same details over and over. Joestynes 15:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a bad proposal - but please drop the "State of...", that simply has no basis in official or common use. Djegan 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Aiieee! Are you starting a debate about what to name the page wherein to debate what to name pages?! Where's George Mitchell when you need him? ;) Joestynes 20:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - no but "Ireland-related articles" or "Republic of Ireland-related articles" would be a better disambiguation than "State of Ireland" - fundementally do we really need an additional article for conventions? Djegan 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff an introduction on the page of the category is available. — Insta ntnood 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per FearÉireann--File Éireann 15:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Departments of the Irish Government to Category:Departments of State of Ireland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed name is more consistant with the mother article Department of State (Ireland) and also the law of the Republic of Ireland that makes it clear that they are indeed Departments of State[1] and not Departments of the Irish Government. The latter name is simply bad naming. Djegan 19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support FearÉIREANN 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, and suggest instead a rename to Category:Departments of State of the Republic of Ireland as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Hiding talk 14:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- unworkable. Many of the departments date to twenty-five years before the creation of the Republic of Ireland. Irish Governments covers both the periods of the Irish Free State and of the Republic of Ireland. Departments of State of the Republic of Ireland could only deal with departments from 1949. How exactly do you suggest then that departments from 1922 to 1949 be covered? A separate list under an accurate name with almost identical content? A full list under a phoney name? FearÉIREANN 20:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, two departments existed during WWII only before the formal declaration of a republic, viz those of the Minister for Supplies (Ireland) and Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (Ireland). Djegan 20:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Change vote to support for argument's sake.~~ Hiding talk 09:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. When I first saw this, the concept of "minister of state" jumped to mind. We talk about the "Minister for Education" and the "Minister of State for Education" and these are two different things. This proposed name change will only confuse matters. --Damac 14:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, read Department of State (Ireland) first - i have well written and reviewed that article and Department of State is the only correct term, see the link that I have provided to the Ministers and Secretaries Act in my above rationale for move. Serious encyclopedias are not in the business of making up and dumbing down terms because people might be confused. In all articles related terms are explained clearly. "Departments of the Irish Government" is simply laughable. Djegan 18:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm still not convinced of the need for this change. Category:Departments of State of Ireland sounds strange, confusing and grammatically questionable. Are we talking about "Departments (of State of Ireland)" or "Departments of State (of Ireland)". These are two different things and this title does not make it clear what you are on about. Furthermore, it is not in line with your recent changes from Irish Minister... to Minister .... (Ireland). I would suggest that to be consistent, you could adopt Category:Departments of State (Ireland).
    - It is quite difficult to understand what is confusing about using the correct terminology, I have yet to see a well proposed category with parenthesis. Considering a "State of Ireland" (as a name) does not exist obvious that is not implied. Djegan 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest you look at how this is done in other countries (for example, see where Secretary of State for the Home Department takes you). Will you also be proposing that the prefix "Her Majesty's" be applied to the title of every article of the prime minsters, ministers and departments in the Commonwealth?--Damac 23:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not what we are discussing here, what we are discussing here is "Departments of State" of Ireland, its pointless trying to create confusion and flawed comparisons. Djegan 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still opposed. I believe this totally unncessary and is not justified by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)). The actual name (i.e. department of state...) of the departments should be included in each article but not in the title. By emphasising "departments of state" we may give the impression that these are in some way different to simple "departments. As it is not just an Irish issue, I think the proposer should first argue his case on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(government_departments_and_ministers) as this decision has implications for the naming of government departments in other countries. --Damac 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your arguement maybe entering the realm of a straw man arguement for the sake of it. Whilst uniformity between countries is optimum the guideline categories do not form a tree makes it clear that each category exists in its own right. One of the reasons why so many categories get on these pages in the first instance is because common but inappropriate names are used. Djegan 10:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Support. Have changed my mind on the matter. Djegan is right but he should learn to argue his case with conviction and argument rather than personal and snide attacks. --Damac 13:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You mentioned that I make "personal and snide attacks" if this is your interpretation of my remarks then I apologise - but I believe they were not personal and snide - it is only my intention to ensure that a vigourous debate takes place here. Djegan 13:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reinstate oppose vote per my arguments above and in support of policy of using the name Republic of Ireland when referring to the Irish State on Wikipedia. Hiding talk 11:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ".....of Ireland" is fine. As the other statelet on Ireland always used the name "Northern Ireland", there can be no confusion between "Departments of State of Ireland" and "Departments of State of Northern Ireland". --Damac 13:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that in Northern Ireland departments where in the style "Ministry of x" whilst ministers were in the style of "Minister of x" with a few exceptions. See[2]. Djegan 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to category:Departments of State (Republic of Ireland). If the decision is to move to category:Departments of State (Ireland) or category:Departments of State of Ireland, add an introduction on the page of the category. — Instantnood 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If we were to move to category:Departments of State (Republic of Ireland) how then to we cover departments that never existed in the Republic of Ireland? Create another category category:Departments of State (Republic of Ireland before it was the Republic of Ireland)? If there we used the name you suggest the list would have to start on 1st April 1949 when the Republic of Ireland was created. But many departments actually go back to 1922; some have their origins earlier. The Department of the Taoiseach came from the Department of the President of the Executive Council which in turn came from the Chief Secretary's Office, which was founded in the 1700s, two centuries before the Republic of Ireland existed!!!FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 17:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - An introductory sentence will do, telling readers the category covers the predecessors. Only saying Ireland in the title is creating troubles. — Insta ntnood 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How often are parenthesis used in category names, I have yet to see one. "State of Ireland" - that is simply a made up phrase. Djegan 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We could do what we do with United Kingdom categories and just accept it as an inelegant fudge. If we become overly precise with category naming we will lose the very point of the categorisation system. Why not just create a category for every single minister of state? I really don't see that this distinction will cause as much confusion as is perhaps being suggested. Hiding talk 18:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If you want to raise a vote for rename for the United Kingdom categories then you can do so at any time, that is not the question here. You can read my comments above about the two Departments of State that would not fit in a Republic of Ireland category which were formed during WWII. If the system used with for the United Kingdom is an "inelegant fudge" then why is Elizabeth I of England categorised as Category:English monarchs whilst Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is categorised as Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom? - because thats the way it was. Djegan 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Hmm. Shouldn't Elizabeth I of England be categorised in Category:Monarchs of England and Ireland? Or maybe instead we need a Category:Monarchs of Ireland into which we can place all from Henry VIII to George V. Also, why is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom categorised with Victoria of the United Kingdom when they were monarchs of different states? As I have said above, how about Cromwell, shouldn't he be in Category:Irish politicians? Hiding talk 19:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment We are getting of the point here but none the less you have raised some valid issues about pre-UK cats (see King of Ireland), you know where to raise them if you want them seriously discussed. United Kingdom is a valid discriptor for either United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and their are very few who would disagree. However as I said departmens of state specifically associated with Minister for Supplies (Ireland) and Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (Ireland) have no place in a Republic of Ireland category as this is a discription (as distinct from a state) which is simply not valid in the stated time period of WWII, no more so than Irish Republic was. Djegan 19:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hage Wars

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty after all articles deleted by AfD>. -Splash^talk 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CalJW 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep STopCat 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - TexasAndroid 15:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Natives of Jersey to Category:Jersey people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consistency with Category:Manx people, Category:British people, Category:Welsh people etc. Man vyi 16:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, should be "People from Jersey". R adiant _>|< 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? It's better than natives, but other British people follow the above format, including Category:Northern Ireland people and Category:Scottish people. I believe the convention to be Fooian people rather than People from Foo. Man vyi 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The county categories use "natives". CalJW 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As nations, the Crown Dependencies would seem to require people for consistency. The corresponding British Overseas Territories categories are not entirely consistent - Category:Bermudian people and Category:Caymanian people as against Category:People of the British Virgin Islands. Man vyi 19:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per nom. (Jersey, Scotland, Isle of Man, etc. are not counties) -Mayumashu 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, I was just pointing out what it is consistent with. CalJW 23:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object should be People from Jersey.--Jondel 12:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, convention is Fooian people as is the case overwhelmingly in Category:People by nationality. People of Foo is used in a minority of cases, though. Man vyi 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object should be Category:People from Jersey. --Vizcarra 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom.--Mais oui! 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Natives of West Glamorgan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Glamorgan no longer exists and did not exist at the time most of these people were born. Deb 11:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, according to this West Glamorgan still exists as a preserved county, and I can't see any real harm in the category. Hiding talk 14:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the time being, will re-categorise to administrative counties then will support deletion once the categorisation has been rationalised. Administrative counties is how its been done for most of Wales. I will take the birth town (or city, or village) as the main frame of reference.

Support Defunct flotsam and jetsam.--Mais oui! 20:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Settlements of Iceland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iceland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland has a combined category for settlements of all sizes. The convention for specific types of settlement such as towns and cities is to use the "in" form. Rename Category:Settlements in Iceland. Tentatively amended to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iceland. CalJW 18:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, but shouldn't that be "cities and villages" for consistency? Radiant_>|< 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also towns to consider. The term "settlement" was selected for the title of the list of settlements in Iceland after some debate. It seems that the only local term is "borg", and only Reykjavík can uncontroversially be classified as a city. In the circumstances I am reluctant to use "cities", but I have amended the proposal for now. I'm in two minds about it still though. I forgot to sign earlier. CalJW 18:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
assimilate these borg into Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iceland :) BL kiss the lizard 23:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep STopCat 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Cities, towns and villages in Iceland Best to have it under "C" for city, which is what people are most likely to look for. Carina22 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lists of Jews

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am nominating this is because User:IZAK is using it as an excuse to delete categories like Category:Jewish Americans. This is not a category for names, it's a category for lists. If IZAK feels this isn't necessary, then fine, but better this go than say, an actual category like Category:Jewish Americans.Vulturell 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant Delete per nomination.Vulturell 09:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lists of Jews have been admirably well maintained. A category that sorts these lists is useful. Other religious and ethnic lists will probably merit corresponding categories as their lists grow. Durova 15:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but Vulturell seems to be saying "remove this category because someone is abusing it", not because there is anything inherently wrong with it. As far as I know, that is not a reason for deletion. Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something more politically correct like Jewish People [[Hypernick1980 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep Yes, the category is a category for lists, because a lot of lists exist. This groups them together. How perfectly functional... The annotated lists should continue to exist, rather than someone creating a category for every possible intersection of traits a human being can possess. No opinion as to renaming—I'm personally ignorant as to whether "Jew" is an acceptable term or not. Postdlf 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Jewish people. I don't really like the "people" in these, but it seems to be the standard. But a category that says it is a list is just weird. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That would a parent category - an alternative name for Category:Jews. It is not what this category is for. CalJW 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Lists of Jewish people. There is also a Category:Lists of British people. CalJW 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If renamed would Category:Lists of Christians need to be renamed Category:List of Christian people? Or is it different as Christianity is solely a religion, not an ethnicity.--T. Anthony 13:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and not rename to Category:Lists of Jewish people. Jew is ethnicity, Jewish is religion. --Vizcarra 15:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No comment needed. -- JJay 02:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless category. No comment needed. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pointless is a comment... -- JJay 02:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It means no further explanation needed as meaning self-evident. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 02:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. No further comment needed. -- JJay 02:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Foreign Game shows

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign to whom? I might not have objected if this were called "foreign language game shows" and then listed non-English game shows (since this is English Wikipedia), but this was a British show. Delete. --Nlu 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as proposed. Megapixie 03:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What you said. Herostratus 04:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as often as is necessary. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Game shows already serves this purpose; the "foreign" qualifier is entirely unnecessary and POV. Bearcat 06:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess I went a little too far with this, for although I'm not a registered user (yet), I created that category. So you can delete it if you want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.61.8 (talk • contribs)
Strong delete, it's POV. Mushroom 02:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The meaninglessness of the category speaks for itself. -- Smjg 10:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 21:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sports in Canada to Category:Sport in Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This had come up back on October 21, but got missed in the shuffle. Basically, Canadian English in this situation goes along with the rest of the non-American world in the usage of the word "Sport" to describe sporting activities as an abstraction. There's something of a midway comprimise between British and American usage, however, in that the section of the newspaper is still generally named Sports and the word "sports" probably crops up in a lot of conversational scenarios where Britons might say "sport". But when dealing with the field as a whole (ie, in contexts akin to "The Arts" or "Commerce" or "Industry"), we are unrepentantly colonial—note the nomenclature of Canadian Interuniversity Sport or the federal government's Minister of State for Sport. The Tom 01:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you can just go ahead and do this; I don't think the circumstances require a repeat discussion. Bearcat 06:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. CalJW 09:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. very interesting to see "sport" used in the official names cited above. still these two cases are at odds with common description of sport(s) as a field in common Canadian English. "sports" is used roughly 12 times more on the web that "sport" in reference to sport(s) in Canada - (a search for "Canadian sports" turned up 1 350 000 yahoo hits, while "Canadian sport" 256 000). the precedent on wikip has been to use common standard language in naming pages, and the word "sports" is just that in referring to the field in the abstract in Canadian English (as it is used by Canadians, not as it may be prescribed). the cat does not name anything offical, unlike the CIS and the gov t ministry, and as names for pages for people use non-formal common terminology (Gordon Howe redirects to Gordie Howe), so the name here as well as for the page Sports in Canada, whose content was shifted to Sport in Canada, should be "sports in canada". note too that provincial cats for sports in Canada have been named by different users all the same way with "sports", reflecting again common, standard usage amongst Canadian wikip users. -Mayumashu 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what I need to do to convince you that I'm not making this up. I'm Canadian. I've worked as a copy editor. "Sport" is the mass noun for looking at that-thing-where-people-run-around-on-fields-in-an-abstract-sense. Of course google is going to find more hits for "sports"... it's a more common word than "sport" in Britain, too. But if you look purely at the contexts where its being used akin to how we're categorizing here, you'll find it's Sport singular. Witness the following nine examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The Tom 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object -Sports in the plural is consistent in categories like People(plural), Occupations, Languages, etc.--Jondel 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the issue and you are making the wrong comparisons. In this context sports is American English and "Sport" is British English. Canadian English is often poised between the two. CalJW 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong comparison??! This is not about British or American English. Plural is used whether it is British or American. Plural does sound better. --Jondel 12:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the current name is better but only within a North American context. British English does not use "sports in the plural" as you ve put it - sports as a collective whole are referred to as "sport" in British English, where the word "sport" is a non-countable (without singular or plural) noun form. -Mayumashu 15:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object The original name is better STopCat 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Standard is to use the proper English for the country under discussion. If Sport is more commonly used in Canada, then the category should use Sport, whether or not it sounds right to us Americans. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Iraqi heads of government to Category:Prime Ministers of Iraq

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Every individual in the category has used the title Prime Minister of Iraq, so to that end it provides increased clarity, and will let us file it with other groupings of prime ministers. Besides, to term all of them (especially some of the Ba'ath and early monarchy-era ones) as the heads of government is probably stretching things a bit--at best, some of them managed Prime Minister of France-level authority. The Tom 01:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move contents per nom, but rename the cat to Category:Presidents of Iraq, and populate. -Splash^talk 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support as per standard for categories of PMs. Suggestion of populating it with presidents is wacky. That is not how WP does categories. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it not? I was guessing. I mean to create Category:Presidents of Iraq, (rather than keep the cat in the nom) it and thusly populate it. Iraq has(had) presidents, unless I gravely misunderstand. If we are to have a PMs cat, why not a presidents too? -Splash^talk 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've created and populated Category:Presidents of Iraq. But I can't see it having any impact on this nom, mind you. The Tom 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films noir

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the title of this one be either entirely "English" ("Film noirs") or entirely "French ("Films noirs") and not some half-hearted compromise? Personally I'd favour Category:Films noirs or - better yet - make the category singular (Category:Film noir), to refer to the genre rather than the individual flicks. If Films noir is acceptable usage, though, I'll willingly withdraw this nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the latter category actually exists, so at the very least some merging is in order... Grutness...wha? 00:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Film noir as per Grutness. I don't recall hearing the term used in the plural. Valiantis 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Valiantis. R adiant
Merge per Valiantis. Gzuckier 21:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_>|< 16:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. There seems to have been a discussion of this issue at Talk:List of films noirs (which is, oddly enough, the talk page for List of films noir). Merge with the singular category in any case, but consider whether to keep the category and the list name consistent. Kusma (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK.. I did some research and Alain Silver (who is a true expert.. wrote a number of books and does lots of DVD noir commentaries says this: I use "film noir" as the plural (as opposed to "a film noir") but may also use noir films. I never use "films noir" or "film noirs,” although I presume the latter would pass muster with the Chicago Manual of Style Steve-O 14:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films directed by Stanley Kubrick to Category:Films by Stanley Kubrick or Category:Stanley Kubrick films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing renaming, as the category is made up of films that were not directed by Kubrick, but produced or associated with. --Fallout boy 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Remove the films not directed by him from the category. Wikipedia convention has been to not categorize films on the basis of producer, writer, gaffer, craft services etc. The Tom 06:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current title implies POV support of the auteur theory, which is disputed. Writers, directors, producers, and starring actors are "above the line" in the Hollywood film industry and acknowledged as major creative contributors to a project. This has legal ramifications in the way their contracts are written. Apparently, by the previous voter's comment, Wikipedia practices systemic bias and the problem should be corrected elsewhere. Durova 15:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category titles were changed from Stanley Kubrick films (or whoever) to directed by for precisely those reasons. A category title like Joel Schumacher films suggested the primacy of the director as creator of the film. JW 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All subcategories of Category:Films by director follow this naming convention. Remove films not directed by him. Kusma (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Durova's argument seems to me to be completely the wrong way round. All the category says is that he directed these films. On the other hand Category:Films by Stanley Kubrick and Category:Stanley Kubrick films would both make stronger auteur claims. CalJW 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both those titles would be inappropriate as the category includes A.I. (not made by Kubrick in any way, but originally developed by him), and a documentary on Kubrick. JW 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.