BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) |
Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
*::::Whatever BHG. I know a personal attack when I see one. Calling me ignorant, lacking understanding, limited, comical, silly... thats personal. Feel free to critique the ideas, but stop attacking me, otherwise I'm going to refer this onwards. --[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
*::::Whatever BHG. I know a personal attack when I see one. Calling me ignorant, lacking understanding, limited, comical, silly... thats personal. Feel free to critique the ideas, but stop attacking me, otherwise I'm going to refer this onwards. --[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
*:::::Please refer yourself to some proper study of the many historical works which will explain to you why Unionism is a "mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation", rather than complaining that you find the reaction of other editors condescending. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> |
*:::::Please refer yourself to some proper study of the many historical works which will explain to you why Unionism is a "mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation", rather than complaining that you find the reaction of other editors condescending. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> |
||
*:::'''comment''' ok let's take a simple example - take this fellow: [[Thomas_Macknight]] He was born in Ireland; but he was a unionist. So, is he a ''British unionist'' or an ''Irish unionist'? And is ''Irish unionist'' and ''Irish unionism'' a subset or type of ''British unionism''? This point is debated, for example by the guy who created these categories. You yourself voted to rename the category to ''British unionism'', knowing full well it would contain Irish people and ideas. So yes, I realize ethnicity is mixed up in this, which is why I've maintained from day 1, these cats should be geographical, not identity based, as it gets too complex otherwise; I'm glad you at least support a rename, which I also do, so we agree on that point.--[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep both''', but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles, [[User:Snappy|Snappy]] ([[User talk:Snappy|talk]]) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep both''', but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles, [[User:Snappy|Snappy]] ([[User talk:Snappy|talk]]) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:05, 1 May 2012
April 30
Category:Anubis
- Propose deleting Category:Anubis - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: The category includes a handful of deities related to Anubis. None of them, except maybe Hermanubis, are really subordinate subjects to Anubis himself, and they're already contained in Category:Egyptian gods or Category:Egyptian goddesses. All of the articles in this category link to Anubis' article in their text. If all the major Egyptian deities had eponymous categories like this, it would be severe overcategorization. A. Parrot (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Slovene and Slovenian clean-up
- Propose merging Category:Slovene dramatists and playwrights to Category:Slovenian dramatists and playwrights and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene drawers to Category:Slovenian drawers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene essayists to Category:Slovenian essayists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene generals to Category:Slovenian generals and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene lawyers to Category:Slovenian lawyers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene linguists to Category:Slovenian linguists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene literary critics to Category:Slovenian literary critics and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene literary historians to Category:Slovenian literary historians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene philologists to Category:Slovenian philologists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene physicians to Category:Slovenian physicians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene poets to Category:Slovenian poets and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene women poets to Category:Slovenian women poets and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene communists to Category:Slovenian communists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene socialists to Category:Slovenian socialists and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene politicians to Category:Slovenian politicians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene screenwriters to Category:Slovenian screenwriters and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene soldiers to Category:Slovenian soldiers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene partisans to Category:Slovenian partisans and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene translators to Category:Slovenian translators and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene writers to Category:Slovenian writers and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene Roman Catholics to Category:Slovenian Roman Catholics and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene Christians to Category:Slovenian Christians and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose merging Category:Slovene political people to Category:Slovenian political people and Category:Ethnic Slovene people
- Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by religion (will be emptied)
- Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by political orientation (will be emptied)
- Propose deleting Category:Slovene people by occupation (will be emptied)
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where there was agreement to merge the specific "Slovene FOOs" categories to the corresponding "Slovenian FOOs" categories. Each one should be double merged to the "Slovenian FOOs" category and to Category:Ethnic Slovene people to retain the ethnic categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- No objection, but I am nominating Category:Slovenian drawers to be renamed as Category:Slovenian draughtsmen. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Municipalities of Oslo
- Propose deleting Category:Municipalities of Oslo - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Oslo is both a county and a municipality, and thus 'municipalities of Oslo' can by definition only contain one article, namely Oslo. Arsenikk (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This category makes no sense, it's clearly redundant. __meco (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, no use. Geschichte (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Categories by time period
To "era"
- Propose merging Category:Categories by time period to Category:Categories by era
- Propose renaming Category:American people by time period by state to Category:American people by era by state (to match contents)
- Nominator's rationale: "Time" is redundant alongside "period", like the media categories nominated yesterday, but category:Categories by time period is in any case an unnecessary layer in between Category:Categories by time and Category:Categories by era. The latter already holds many sub-cats named "by period". – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Question: does anybody see any value in grouping the period/era categories between geological, prehistoric, historical and cultural eras? Very few categories span more than one of these ranges (Category:Treasure troves by era is one that does). – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've revised this nomination to separate the geologic time scale at least. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Man, this is a hard nomination to process. Can we at least get the ones that will have the same kind of change together? Overall, I'm in favor of deleting the word "time," but I don't yet know about the switches to "era," "century," etc.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, I thought it was neat. OK, now see below for various groups. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Just remove "time"
- Propose renaming Category:Writers by time period to Category:Writers by period
- Propose renaming Category:Historical novelists by time period to Category:Historical novelists by period
- Propose renaming Category:Christian clergy by time period to Category:Christian clergy by period
- Propose renaming Category:Bishops by time period to Category:Bishops by period
- Propose renaming Category:American people by time period to Category:American people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Australian people by time period to Category:Australian people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian people by time period to Category:Canadian people by period
- Propose renaming Category:English people by time period to Category:English people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Irish people by time period to Category:Irish people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Spanish people by time period to Category:Spanish people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of people by time period to Category:Lists of people by period
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of philosophers by time period to Category:Lists of philosophers by period
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to shorter name without the redundant word. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
To "century" or "decade"
- Propose renaming Category:Revolutions by time period to Category:Revolutions by century
- Propose renaming Category:Anglican archbishops by time period to Category:Anglican archbishops by century
- Propose renaming Category:French writers by time period to Category:French writers by century
- Propose renaming Category:Spanish writers by time period to Category:Spanish writers by century
- Propose upmerging Category:Slovak people by time period to Category:Slovak people (only contains sub-cat by century)
- Propose renaming Category:Electro pop by time period to Category:Electro pop by decade
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect the actual contents. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
To "date"
- Propose renaming Category:Shipwrecks by time period to Category:Shipwrecks by date
- Nominator's rationale: Rename; the Shipwrecks category is an odd-one-out as it holds one sub-cat each by year, century and era. I would move it up into Category:Categories by time, which has various other sub-cats "by date". – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
To "geologic time scale"
- Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric fish by time period to Category:Prehistoric fish by geologic time scale
- Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric mammals by time period to Category:Prehistoric mammals by geologic time scale
- Propose renaming Category:Volcanism by geological period to Category:Volcanism by geologic time scale
- Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric plants sorted by geochronology to Prehistoric plants by geologic time scale
- Propose splitting Category:Categories by era to Category:Categories by geologic time scale
- Nominator's rationale: Rename per geologic time scale; it seems useful to group these apart from later periods, as their contents have no overlap with categories using other ranges of time. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Blueberry sodas
- Propose deleting Category:Blueberry sodas - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Has only one page; has had a population request since creation four years ago. Blueberry doesn't seem to be a common soda flavor; or at least common enough to sustain a category. Suggest either deletion (as the single page in the category, Filbert's Old Time Root Beer, is already in several other soft drink-related categories) or upmerge to Category:Fruit sodas pbp 13:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Fruit sodas. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- You mean Category:Fruit sodas? FYI, I found a second entry (Nehi), but again, we still don't really have the five or so we need and that one is also in a number of other fruit soda-related categories pbp 16:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Kapuso
- Propose deleting Category:Kapuso - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Category duplicate to Category:GMA Network. "Kapuso" is a marketing tagline of GMA Network and it is not well known elsewhere outside of the Philippines -WayKurat (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Shipwrecks by country
Propose renaming:
- Category:Shipwrecks in Finland to Category:Shipwrecks of Finland
- Category:Shipwrecks in France to Category:Shipwrecks of France
- Category:Shipwrecks in Gibraltar to Category:Shipwrecks of Gibraltar
- Category:Shipwrecks in Italy to Category:Shipwrecks of Italy
- Category:Shipwrecks in Portugal to Category:Shipwrecks of Portugal
- Category:Shipwrecks in Sweden to Category:Shipwrecks of Sweden
To bring these in line with the dominant form at Category:Shipwrecks by country. 'In' is used with bodies of water (seas, oceans, lakes, rivers), whereas 'in' a particular country generally implies within its land borders, unlikely for most ships, which tend to sink off them. The equivalent for a country's waters would be 'in Finnish waters' (for example). But a country's territorial waters can be disputed and ships categorised this way usually have sunk in reasonable proximity to the country's coastline, though not necessarily within their waters as defined in maritime law. 'of country xxx' works as well for the cases where ships have been wrecked within a country's land mass (in rivers, estuaries, harbours, etc). Benea (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- However, I would question whether some of the contents are correctly categorised: The French category includes a lot of ships that were deliberately scuttled to form breakwaters in connection with the WWII Normandy landings. These were not "shipwrecks" in the normal meaning of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- A subcategory for the scuttled ships might be appropriate. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that more use has not been made of "Shipwrecks off"; the only one seems to be Category:Shipwrecks off the coast of Norfolk. Without knowing in advance how things were named, I wondered if there was any ambiguity as to whether "Shipwrecks of Foo" could be understood to refer to ownership ("Wrecked ships of Foo") rather than location. However, it seems to be sufficienly well understood to support the nomination, and add the following:
- Propose merging:
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Shipwrecks near Guyana to Category:Shipwrecks of Guyana
- Category:Shipwrecks in Africa to Category:Shipwrecks of Africa
- Category:Shipwrecks in Southeast Asia to Category:Shipwrecks of Southeast Asia
- Category:Shipwrecks in Alabama to Category:Shipwrecks of Alabama
- Category:Shipwrecks in New York to Category:Shipwrecks of New York
- Category:Shipwrecks on the Australian coast to Category:Shipwrecks of Australia
- Category:Shipwrecks on the Korean coast to Category:Shipwrecks of Korea
- Category:Shipwrecks on the South African coast to Category:Shipwrecks of South Africa
- Category:Shipwrecks of the Japanese coast to Category:Shipwrecks of Japan
- Category:Shipwrecks of the Spanish coast to Category:Shipwrecks of Spain
- Category:Shipwrecks of the Taiwan coast to Category:Shipwrecks of Taiwan
- Category:Shipwrecks off the coast of Norfolk to Category:Shipwrecks of Norfolk
- The remaining categories that start with "Shipwrecks in" refer to waters rather than countries, and look fine. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Cream soda
- Propose renaming Category:Cream soda to Category:Cream sodas
- Nominator's rationale: Categories are generally pluralized. You have Category:Citrus sodas, Category:Grape sodas, Category:Orange sodas, etc pbp 04:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support Can be speedied, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism
- Propose merging Category:Irish unionism to Category:British unionism
- Propose merging Category:Scottish unionism to Category:British unionism
- Nominator's rationale: :Nominator's rationale: After a difficult discussion, the rename of Category:Unionism to Category:British unionism was completed today. Then, 2 new categories were created (actually 3 including Category:Ulster unionism ). My understanding of the general consensus during the previous CfD discussion was that the category was to capture the general 'movement' towards union with the UK and its predecessor states, and was to be inclusive of all relevant geographies in the isles. These new categories risk confusion - as aren't British unionists in Scotland Scottish as well? The same applies for northern Ireland, and pre-1922 Ireland, where, technically, a unionist would have British nationality as well as Irish one. These titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation, and I'd suggest delete/upmerge for now, followed by a consensus conversation on the talk page on how to move forward with this category rather than further unilateral subdividing and category creation. Also, the separation between Category:Irish unionism and Category:Ulster unionism is also not trivial, as the two are clearly linked...our friends at citizendium list them as synonyms: [1] --KarlB (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It is rather hard to reply to a completely blank "Nominator's rationale", but the category should assist navigation. Irish Unionism is quite distinct from Unionism in Scotland. Moonraker (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- note there was an edit conflict which was why moonraker didn't see the rationale. --KarlB (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, KarlB, when I replied to your two separate merge proposals both "rationales" were blank. Anyone looking at the page history can confirm that. Now that the rationales have been added, there is little which needs a reply, I find it all so comical. Moonraker (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't use a mocking tone. I added the merge requests and as I was gathering the two together, I deferred finalizing the justification until I got back to this page to make the edits; thus you are correct they were blank for about 6 minutes, but it would have been blank for 4 minutes if we didn't run into an edit conflict (I tried to save but you had already edited). It just means you were quick to respond, which is not a problem, but let's please not make a big deal out of it - my note above was just to explain why your comment says 'blank' when in fact it isn't blank anymore. --KarlB (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws. For example the comment that "pre-1922 Ireland, where, technically, a unionist would have British nationality as well as Irish one" is a comic masterpiece. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ask that you stop the ad-hominem attacks. If it is comic to refer to people in Ireland as being British, please explain why. Thanks. "The new, expanded United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland meant that the state had to re-evaulate its position on the civil rights of Catholics, and extend its definition of Britishness to the Irish people." British_people--KarlB (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ask that you stop the ad-hominem attacks. If it is comic to refer to people in Ireland as being British, please explain why. Thanks. "The new, expanded United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland meant that the state had to re-evaulate its position on the civil rights of Catholics, and extend its definition of Britishness to the Irish people." British_people--KarlB (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. Everyone has different areas of expertise and knowledge, but it is disruptive for an editor to repeatedly pursue proposals which display such fundamental flaws. For example the comment that "pre-1922 Ireland, where, technically, a unionist would have British nationality as well as Irish one" is a comic masterpiece. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't use a mocking tone. I added the merge requests and as I was gathering the two together, I deferred finalizing the justification until I got back to this page to make the edits; thus you are correct they were blank for about 6 minutes, but it would have been blank for 4 minutes if we didn't run into an edit conflict (I tried to save but you had already edited). It just means you were quick to respond, which is not a problem, but let's please not make a big deal out of it - my note above was just to explain why your comment says 'blank' when in fact it isn't blank anymore. --KarlB (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, KarlB, when I replied to your two separate merge proposals both "rationales" were blank. Anyone looking at the page history can confirm that. Now that the rationales have been added, there is little which needs a reply, I find it all so comical. Moonraker (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment Also fwiw, if consensus ends up being to keep these categories, I would nonetheless propose a rename to Category:Unionism in Ireland and Category:Unionism in Scotland to match the head articles, whose titles have already been the subject of previous battles. --KarlB (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- For consistency, Category:British unionism should then become Category:Unionism in Britain or Category:Unionism in the United Kingdom. If the first, it would plainly exclude all Unionism within Ireland, North or South. If the second, it would not cover the whole period of Scottish Unionism, which goes back to before the creation of the United Kingdom. Moonraker (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment I agree; RA had proposed that the article 'British Unionism' be renamed to 'Unionism (United Kingdom)' or similar. My argument against that rename was the same as yours - anachronism b/c of Scotland/etc, before creation of UK - (in addition you may note that the history of the name of that page itself has been disputed in the past). In any case, consensus wasn't with me, and seemed to lean towards classifying based on the end result (UK or British). In any case, I don't want to rehash all of those arguments. If consensus is to keep these two cats, renaming them to match the article head is reasonable and in line with standard practice, and if the British unionism article rename discussion can be had on the talk page there, then one could rename the category afterwards. There was a long discussion about the title of the Unionism in Scotland article (here is on relevant quote from one page move: "moved Scottish Unionism to Unionists (Scotland): the article is about British Unionism: "Scottish Unionism" is confusing" (MaisOui) I wonder if he would at least support a rename of the categories (or his mind may have changed in 6 years! :) )--KarlB (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep both (I assume that this is one discussion and not two, despite the two headers) - Unionism in Scotland has its own parent article, and is a huge and highly important topic, not least in the period leading up to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The strength, or weakness, of Scottish unionism will largely determine whether the UK continues as a state post-2014. Thus this small movement in a corner of northern Europe holds a key to the future of many international organisations, including the UN Security Council, NATO and the EU Commission. Taking our eyes off the future and casting them to the past, looking back over the last 70 years, and especially the last 40, the long, slow decline of Scottish unionism is one of the key areas of academic study in the field of Scottish politics, and has received literally mountains of broadsheet coverage. Actually, I find it hard to think of a topic that is more important to modern Scotland than this one, and here we are at Wikipedia discussing deleting the associated cat. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - I have unified the headers as there is only one 'Nominator's rationale' statement, which included both cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment I appreciate the strong feelings, but please note that this category you so value was created today. In fact, in a previous discussion on Category:Unionism, where all the articles on Scottish unionism had lived for years, you yourself recommended that it be renamed to Category:British unionism.--KarlB (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - err... so what? I suggested that cat:Unionism be moved to have the same name as the parent article. That has zero relevance to this new discussion. Wikipedia lacks many cats and articles and templates and portals and projects that ought to exist, and User:Moonraker has done us a service in creating these much-needed cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - I have unified the headers as there is only one 'Nominator's rationale' statement, which included both cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - not only does the Scottish unionism cat have a parent article, but it also has a matching sister category: Category:Scottish nationalism. How on earth could we delete one without deleting the other? It would be like deleting Category:Republican Party (United States) while retaining Category:Democratic Party (United States). They are opposite sides of the same coin. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose -- These are not the same movement. They might have a new common parent Category:Unionism in in the United Kingdom, by a REname of Category:British unionism. Scottish Nationalism is in fact the converse of Unionism: Unionists want to stay in UK; Nationalists want to leave or have greater autonomy. "British Unionism" reminds me of the British Union of Fascists, which was something completely different. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment if you feel the consensus could shift, you could propose a rename of Category:British unionism; I'm not going to...--KarlB (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Previous CfD The Category:Unionism was previously discussed here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_14#Category:Unionism; as you can see from the arguments made at the time, deleting or splitting it up into per-country flavors of unionism was decided against at the time. A quote from TimRollPickering from that debate which may be germane (not implying his support for this CfD, just thought the logic was sound) : "Keep "Unionist" for the historic Scottish Unionist Party referred to Ireland, not Scotland (the Union there wasn't a major issue at the time), the same as in the Conservatives' full name "Conservative and Unionist Party". Sometimes category structures throw up unintended consequences but rigid separation would make them worse." --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The 2007 discussion decided against splitting the category. It did not decide against creating subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As a complete outsider to this debate, the titles Category:Irish unionism and Category:Scottish unionism rely on a reader knowing that "unionism" here means "union inside the UK" and not "union inside Ireland" or "union inside Scotland" respectively. I know this, because I'm British, but why would someone of a different nationality know it? I don't see any reason to merge the categories, but "Category:British unionism in Ireland" and "Category:British unionism in Scotland", both being subcategories of "Category:British unionism", would be clearer in the context of Wikipedia generally. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment thanks, I also agree these terms are confusing; and as stated above, if consensus is to keep, I would vote to rename them in line with the head articles, i.e. Category:Unionism in Ireland and Category:Unionism in Scotland. Would you agree with that? --KarlB (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep both, but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles. Unionism in Scotland and Unionism in Ireland are very different shaped creatures, reflecting the very different sets of issues which the United Kingdom has raised in the histories and politics of the two countries. They should be kept as separate categories, to group the issues for each country, and avoid multiply parenting the relevant articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism. I don't know why the nominator has taken a sudden interest in categories relating to Ireland, but his enthusiasm for proposing changes (and verbosely defending his proposals) is sadly not matched by even a basic understanding of the issues involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ask again that you stop the ad-hominem and condescending attacks. Please argue based on the issues at hand. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not criticising you as a person; I am criticising the disruptively ill-informed contributions which you make to these discussions. And I'll ask again that you cease to waste the time of other editors by making structural proposals on complex topics where your knowledge is so limited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever BHG. I know a personal attack when I see one. Calling me ignorant, lacking understanding, limited, comical, silly... thats personal. Feel free to critique the ideas, but stop attacking me, otherwise I'm going to refer this onwards. --KarlB (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please refer yourself to some proper study of the many historical works which will explain to you why Unionism is a "mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation", rather than complaining that you find the reaction of other editors condescending. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Whatever BHG. I know a personal attack when I see one. Calling me ignorant, lacking understanding, limited, comical, silly... thats personal. Feel free to critique the ideas, but stop attacking me, otherwise I'm going to refer this onwards. --KarlB (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment ok let's take a simple example - take this fellow: Thomas_Macknight He was born in Ireland; but he was a unionist. So, is he a British unionist or an Irish unionist'? And is Irish unionist and Irish unionism a subset or type of British unionism? This point is debated, for example by the guy who created these categories. You yourself voted to rename the category to British unionism, knowing full well it would contain Irish people and ideas. So yes, I realize ethnicity is mixed up in this, which is why I've maintained from day 1, these cats should be geographical, not identity based, as it gets too complex otherwise; I'm glad you at least support a rename, which I also do, so we agree on that point.--KarlB (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not criticising you as a person; I am criticising the disruptively ill-informed contributions which you make to these discussions. And I'll ask again that you cease to waste the time of other editors by making structural proposals on complex topics where your knowledge is so limited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ask again that you stop the ad-hominem and condescending attacks. Please argue based on the issues at hand. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism. I don't know why the nominator has taken a sudden interest in categories relating to Ireland, but his enthusiasm for proposing changes (and verbosely defending his proposals) is sadly not matched by even a basic understanding of the issues involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep both, but rename to "Unionism in Foo" to match head articles, Snappy (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Category loop
Category:User rn-2
- Propose deleting Category:User rn-2 - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Just has a test page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:User eml:pra-N
- Propose renaming Category:User eml:pra-N to Category:???
- Nominator's rationale: This is malformed and should be fixed, but I'm not sure how. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Porte class gate vessels
- Propose deleting Category:Porte class gate vessels - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article, not part of a scheme —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Mergeprobably better to upmerge to Category:Naval ships of Canada. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)- Whoops. I didn't mean merge - which would remove the contents elsewhere - I meant include this category within a larger category. It seems fine as it is now so changing to Keep. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The rationale is now invalid, category has been integrated into the existing ship schemes, and now contains three articles and a template, with three more articles on the way. Benea (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:People in a first-cousin relationship
- Propose deleting Category:People in a first-cousin relationship - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Not a defining feature, trivial, almost random association —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment delete. This is not defining; it's just something that happened to them - marrying of close family happened in a lot of cultures, and still does in some cases. --KarlB (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per extensive precedents not to categorize people by marriage or relationship status. Category:People who married their sibling would be far more important than this, and we certainly don't have that. As noted, marrying a first cousin is still quite common—in many places now-a-days, there are restrictions on marrying lineal descendants or progenitors (and siblings), but not cousins. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OCAT by random point of commonality that fails to constitute a defining characteristic of the people in question. While it's a type of relationship that's certainly stigmatized in some cultures, it isn't stigmatized in many others, and often wasn't historically stigmatized even in some of the cultures that do stigmatize it today — which means it isn't notable at all, because there isn't any sort of cultural unanimity on whether it's even an unusual or noteworthy thing to do. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I spoke too soon, and perhaps did a WP:BEANS job with my comment above: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_1#Category:Sibling marriage or relationship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Also, FWIW, this is more or less a re-creation of People who married their cousins, which was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Middlesex County Cricket Club Executive Board Members
- Propose deleting Category:Middlesex County Cricket Club Executive Board Members - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: redlink organization —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Articlify -- This is a list article in category space. The redlink arose becasue the link was to the Board, not to Middlesex County Cricket Club, which is a first class county cricket club and certainly notable. I am nevertheless dubious whehtrer we need a category for the members of its governing board. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Management Education
Category:Films directed by Carl Rinsch
- Propose deleting Category:Films directed by Carl Rinsch - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: redlink director —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, unless of course the article is created in the next few days. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:GMA Network, Inc.
- Propose deleting Category:GMA Network, Inc. - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Just an image and a userpage —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support - category duplicate to Category:GMA_Network -WayKurat (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. There are actually two different topics underlying this. GMA Network is a television network. GMA Network, Inc. is the parent company that owns the network. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:CEFAT Alumni
- Propose deleting Category:CEFAT Alumni - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Per CEFAT redlink. At least, rename per proper caps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Seems to mean Centro de Formacion Actoral of TV Azteca. Spanish Wikipedia refers to it as CEFAC, but even there it is uncited (es:Televisión Azteca#Centro de Estudios y Formación Actoral (CEFAC)). The abbreviation "CEFAC" is also included in the English article Iliana Fox. Old CEFACians? <ducks> – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- ... I was hoping for "Old Fatties", personally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:United States federal healthcare legislation
- Propose renaming Category:United States federal healthcare legislation to Category:United States federal health legislation
- Nominator's rationale: Another one where healthcare is too restrictive a category. The articles within contain laws about food safety, coal mine health, genetic non-discrimination, etc. etc. I don't think it's' worth having two such categories (one for health and one for healthcare); instead, we should rename, to more accurately reflect the scope of the category as currently filled in by editor consensus.
Google scholar (as an indication of popularity of the terms)
— KarlB (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support Sounds sensible.—GoldRingChip 00:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- There seems to be a current move to convert all "healthcare" articles to health. A legislature can provide a mechanism for health care, but it is incapable of legislating to make people healthy! Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment there are many instances of a legislature trying to do exactly that. Here are a few: Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act; Child_Nutrition_Act. In other words, there is a fair amount of legislation that is not really about provision of health care, but about enabling of 'healthly' environments; and as indicated through the google scholar searches, 'health legislation' is typically how such work is described. --KarlB (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)