Mike Selinker (talk | contribs) |
69.46.35.69 (talk) →Opposed nominations: Respond to more Selinker misdirection |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
:* there was also a previous speedy opposition by someone else for these claiming the end-words "of the American Civil War" are needed for C2C. [[User:Lake Woodhouse in Denver|Lake Woodhouse in Denver]] ([[User talk:Lake Woodhouse in Denver|talk]]) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
:* there was also a previous speedy opposition by someone else for these claiming the end-words "of the American Civil War" are needed for C2C. [[User:Lake Woodhouse in Denver|Lake Woodhouse in Denver]] ([[User talk:Lake Woodhouse in Denver|talk]]) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*I understand that there are proposed changes greater than the ones offered here. I'm proposing the simple change to match the article names in most cases.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
::*I understand that there are proposed changes greater than the ones offered here. I'm proposing the simple change to match the article names in most cases.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::* |
:::*"'''change to match the article names in most cases" to the nominated names "Category:Battles of the X Campaign'''" is patently false since clearly there are no "Battles of the [X] Campaign" articles at wikipedia (the cat mains are "Overland Campaign", "Jackson's Valley Campaign", etc. without "Battles of..."--of which you were aware since you wrote them out in the nomination). And that was also clearly pointed out to you in the preceding opposition. So to rationalize your nomination with the absurdly false claim that your nomination is to "change to match the article names in most cases" (a false claim of C2D) is clearly bad faith since you were aware the nominated names don't "match" the "article names" and you saw someone had already pointed that out to you. After getting caught at your conflict-of-interest adjudication for the other Civil War category I would've thought you'd be more ethical, but instead it looks like you are going to continue. [[Special:Contributions/69.46.35.69|69.46.35.69]] ([[User talk:69.46.35.69|talk]]) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) <small>(added verbatim bold header on ~~)</small> |
||
:*'''Oppose''': Violates C2D policy, and doesn't meet any of its exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/69.46.35.69|69.46.35.69]] ([[User talk:69.46.35.69|talk]]) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
:*'''Oppose''': Violates C2D policy, and doesn't meet any of its exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/69.46.35.69|69.46.35.69]] ([[User talk:69.46.35.69|talk]]) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*Hold on a moment while I try to absorb what just happened here. The nominator proposed a nomination where they suggested changing the categories in the style of [[:Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War]] to [[:Category:Overland Campaign]]. I said that removing "Battles of" didn't match any Speedy criteria, but that the nominator was right about changing "Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War" to "the Overland Campaign". I very clearly noted that I was doing so below, and responded to an objection lodged above. And so for ''that,'' you just accuse me of a conflict of interest, bad faith, and ethical lapses? For Pete's sake, don't throw around charges like that.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 08:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
::*Hold on a moment while I try to absorb what just happened here. The nominator proposed a nomination where they suggested changing the categories in the style of [[:Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War]] to [[:Category:Overland Campaign]]. I said that removing "Battles of" didn't match any Speedy criteria, but that the nominator was right about changing "Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War" to "the Overland Campaign". I very clearly noted that I was doing so below, and responded to an objection lodged above. And so for ''that,'' you just accuse me of a conflict of interest, bad faith, and ethical lapses? For Pete's sake, don't throw around charges like that.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] ([[User talk:Mike Selinker|talk]]) 08:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::*Nice try with the verbosity, but nowhere in your "hold on a moment" defense is there a claim that your patently false statement above (to justify speedy) is true, nor did you include any rationale defending your conflict of interest at the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30|December 30 CfM]]. All you did in your defense was just try to misdirect the reader to look at unrelated information that has nothing to do with whether the article names match--but of course that is your modus operandi since you know they don't match (kind of like misdirection to rationalize by Starcheerswhatever and several other of the categorists.) Come on, let's see you try to actually defend your false claim that "Battles of the [X] Campaign" matches the "article names in most cases". Oh wait, that won't happen because if they did, you would've actually stated "C2D" for the reason instead of "Clear C2C names" that you made not visible in the collapsed box. Let's here it: which "article name" actually "matches" any of the Category names you proposed in your nomination? It'll be interesting to see how you weasel a response (probably more 'but look over here' misdirection)... [[Special:Contributions/69.46.35.69|69.46.35.69]] ([[User talk:69.46.35.69|talk]]) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Rename the categories with the name format of [[:Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War]] to the format [[:Category:Overland Campaign]] - C2D (Cat main is [[Overland Campaign]]) [[Special:Contributions/64.134.54.68|64.134.54.68]] ([[User talk:64.134.54.68|talk]]) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
*Rename the categories with the name format of [[:Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War]] to the format [[:Category:Overland Campaign]] - C2D (Cat main is [[Overland Campaign]]) [[Special:Contributions/64.134.54.68|64.134.54.68]] ([[User talk:64.134.54.68|talk]]) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{Collapse top|RENAME <small>Category:Battles of X Campaign of the American Civil War</small> TO <small>Category:X' Campaign</small> |width=650px}} |
{{Collapse top|RENAME <small>Category:Battles of X Campaign of the American Civil War</small> TO <small>Category:X' Campaign</small> |width=650px}} |
Revision as of 17:25, 10 January 2012
Speedy renaming and speedy merging
Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not processed that do not meet the criteria.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.
Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.
Speedy criteria
Criteria for speedy deletion, renaming, or merging are strictly limited to: From 20 November 2009 to 4 December 2013 the policy page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion transcluded the criteria for deletion of categories from a discussion page instead of having them directly coded in the policy page. To see the history of that section of the speedy deletion policy during that period, see the editing history of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria. For current discussion page for the same material see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Speedy criteria.
- A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
- The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed above, and;
- No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
- If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.
Add requests for speedy renaming here
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria in C2 listed above, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format:.
- * [[:Category:OLD name]] to [[:Category:NEW name]] – Reason for rename. ~~~~
Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:Cfr-speedy|newname}}
Please add new entries at the top of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with ~~~~.
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 12:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) or earlier.
- Category:Jackson State Tigers men's basketball to Category:Jackson State Tigers basketball - C2D per Jackson State Tigers basketball. — Moe ε 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Jackson State Tigers men's basketball coaches to Category:Jackson State Tigers basketball coaches - C2D per Jackson State Tigers basketball. — Moe ε 05:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Jackson State Tigers men's basketball players to Category:Jackson State Tigers basketball players - C2D per Jackson State Tigers basketball. — Moe ε 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Articles that need a character section to Category:Television articles that need a character section – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Articles that need a production section to Category:Television articles that need a production section – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Articles that need a response section to Category:Television articles that need a response section – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Articles that need an episode list to Category:Television articles that need an episode list – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Economy of Pakistan by city to Category:Economies by city in Pakistan – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Economies of cities in South Africa to Category:Economies by city in South Africa – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Economies of cities in the United States to Category:Economies by city in the United States – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Economy of India by city to Category:Economies by city in India – C2C. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Indian architecture by city to Category:Architecture in India by city – C2C, convention within Category:Architecture by city. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Sports awards templates to Category:Sports awards navigational boxes – C2D. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Sporting News awards templates to Category:Sporting News awards navigational boxes
- Category:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame templates to Category:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes
- Category:Association football awards templates to Category:Association football awards navigational boxes
- Category:Association football top scorer awards templates to Category:Association football top scorer awards navigational boxes
- Category:Adult and juvenile sexuality films to Category:Juvenile sexuality in films – more accurate. Pass a Method talk 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:2005 NCAA Division I FBS football season conference navboxes to Category:2005 NCAA Division I-A football season conference navboxes – Match naming of parent category. DeFaultRyan 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Adult and juvenile sexuality music to Category:Juvenile sexuality in music – more accurate. Pass a Method talk 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Tennessee Lady Volunteers championship templates to Category:Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball championship navigational boxes – C2D. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns tennis players to Category:Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns tennis players – C2D. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Cuban Nobility to Category:Cuban nobility – capitalization. Pichpich (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Albums produced by Dan Nakamura to Category:Albums produced by Dan the Automator – Matching the name of the corresponding article Dan the Automator. Pichpich (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:USISL seasons to Category:United States Interregional Soccer League seasons – C2C: expanding acronym. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:USISL D-3 Pro League seasons to Category:United States Interregional Soccer League D-3 Pro League seasons
- Category:USL Second Division seasons to Category:United Soccer Leagues Second Division seasons
- Category:2011 USL Pro season to Category:2011 United Soccer Leagues Pro seasons by club (also clarifying actual content)
- Category:USL Pro seasons to Category:United Soccer Leagues Pro seasons
- Category:USL Premier Development League seasons to Category:United Soccer Leagues Premier Development League seasons
- Category:USL First Division seasons by club to Category:United Soccer Leagues First Division seasons by club
- Category:USL First Division seasons to Category:United Soccer Leagues First Division seasons
- Category:Thunder Series to Category:Thunder series – C2A,B Izno (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest Category:Thunder (video game series) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Men's sports in Australia to Category:Men's sport in Australia – C2C, parent Category:Sport in Australia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in Australia to Category:Women's sport in Australia – C2C, parent Category:Sport in Australia. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in India to Category:Women's sport in India – C2C, parent Category:Sport in India. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in Ireland to Category:Women's sport in Ireland – C2C, parent Category:Sport in Ireland. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in New Zealand to Category:Women's sport in New Zealand – C2C, parent Category:Sport in New Zealand. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in Scotland to Category:Women's sport in Scotland – C2C, parent Category:Sport in Scotland. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in South Africa to Category:Women's sport in South Africa – C2C, parent Category:Sport in South Africa. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's sports in the United Kingdom to Category:Women's sport in the United Kingdom – C2C, parent Category:Sport in the United Kingdom. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Mine warfare classes to Category:Mine warfare vessel classes – C2C: per parent Category:Mine warfare vessels. The Bushranger One ping only 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Geology of Carpathians to Category:Geology of the Carpathians - Proper grammar, consistent with all sibling cats. Cgingold (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:People from Guernsey to Category:Guernsey people – C2C: Per all subcategories and Category:People by British Crown dependency.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Women's U18 World Ice Hockey Championships to Category:IIHF World Women's U18 Championships – C2C. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:HP webOS to Category:HP WebOS – C2A. Pnm (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Cancelled mobile phone games to Category:Cancelled mobile games – C2C. Pnm (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Opposed nominations
- The following template was posted without visible signature by Mike Selinker (talk) on 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- My signature is inside the collapse box at the end.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- oppose since C2D is for categories to be named for their main articles, e.g., the nominator says "per Overland Campaign" etc, so that's what the categories should be named. Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- there was also a previous speedy opposition by someone else for these claiming the end-words "of the American Civil War" are needed for C2C. Lake Woodhouse in Denver (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that there are proposed changes greater than the ones offered here. I'm proposing the simple change to match the article names in most cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- "change to match the article names in most cases" to the nominated names "Category:Battles of the X Campaign" is patently false since clearly there are no "Battles of the [X] Campaign" articles at wikipedia (the cat mains are "Overland Campaign", "Jackson's Valley Campaign", etc. without "Battles of..."--of which you were aware since you wrote them out in the nomination). And that was also clearly pointed out to you in the preceding opposition. So to rationalize your nomination with the absurdly false claim that your nomination is to "change to match the article names in most cases" (a false claim of C2D) is clearly bad faith since you were aware the nominated names don't "match" the "article names" and you saw someone had already pointed that out to you. After getting caught at your conflict-of-interest adjudication for the other Civil War category I would've thought you'd be more ethical, but instead it looks like you are going to continue. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) (added verbatim bold header on ~~)
- Oppose: Violates C2D policy, and doesn't meet any of its exceptions. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hold on a moment while I try to absorb what just happened here. The nominator proposed a nomination where they suggested changing the categories in the style of Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War to Category:Overland Campaign. I said that removing "Battles of" didn't match any Speedy criteria, but that the nominator was right about changing "Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War" to "the Overland Campaign". I very clearly noted that I was doing so below, and responded to an objection lodged above. And so for that, you just accuse me of a conflict of interest, bad faith, and ethical lapses? For Pete's sake, don't throw around charges like that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nice try with the verbosity, but nowhere in your "hold on a moment" defense is there a claim that your patently false statement above (to justify speedy) is true, nor did you include any rationale defending your conflict of interest at the December 30 CfM. All you did in your defense was just try to misdirect the reader to look at unrelated information that has nothing to do with whether the article names match--but of course that is your modus operandi since you know they don't match (kind of like misdirection to rationalize by Starcheerswhatever and several other of the categorists.) Come on, let's see you try to actually defend your false claim that "Battles of the [X] Campaign" matches the "article names in most cases". Oh wait, that won't happen because if they did, you would've actually stated "C2D" for the reason instead of "Clear C2C names" that you made not visible in the collapsed box. Let's here it: which "article name" actually "matches" any of the Category names you proposed in your nomination? It'll be interesting to see how you weasel a response (probably more 'but look over here' misdirection)... 69.46.35.69 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rename the categories with the name format of Category:Battles of Grant's Overland Campaign of the American Civil War to the format Category:Overland Campaign - C2D (Cat main is Overland Campaign) 64.134.54.68 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I feel like this is three nominations: removing "of the American Civil War," which seems like it qualifies for Speedy renaming under C2D; removing "Battles of the," which seems like it doesn't qualify under any Speedy criterion; and combining the last three, which also doesn't qualify under any Speedy criterion. Accordingly, I'd suggest it go to a full nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike Selinker that these nominations seem to go beyond the speedy rename criteria and should be proposed in a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where I'll likely oppose anyway. Cats don't have to match the main article - and I think the main article is wrong here anyway... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused with the "I think the main article is wrong here anyway" question, which is singular ("is") for multiple main articles. What could otherwise possibly be the correct main article for categories regarding the Overland Campaign et al, which were series of battles? Clearly it would be preposterous to create the main articles named "Battles of the X Campaign", which the objector falsely indicated exist via his claim "qualifies for Speedy renaming under C2D"? The objections to using the main article names indicates category names should be expanded to be improperly wordy, e.g., Category:Montana to Category:State of Montana, Category:Elevators to Category:Lifting devices that are elevators, Category:Animals to Category:Creatures in the Animal Kingdom, et al. 208.54.40.246 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- The main article should probably be at Overland Campaign of the American Civil War - just "Overlan Campaign" is quite ambigious, I'd think. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose – the nom is proposing to take articles out of a tightly defined category such as Category:Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign (subcat of Category:Battles) and lump them into the undefined Category:Gettysburg Campaign. (We quite often have trees such as Category:Oasis (band), Category:Oasis (band) members without feeling any need for an article Oasis (band) members.) Occuli (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I decided to deal with the easy thing (removing "of the American Civil War") by relisting the Speedy nomination above. Assuming that passes, the problematic ones can be relisted as full nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – the nom is proposing to take articles out of a tightly defined category such as Category:Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign (subcat of Category:Battles) and lump them into the undefined Category:Gettysburg Campaign. (We quite often have trees such as Category:Oasis (band), Category:Oasis (band) members without feeling any need for an article Oasis (band) members.) Occuli (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- The main article should probably be at Overland Campaign of the American Civil War - just "Overlan Campaign" is quite ambigious, I'd think. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused with the "I think the main article is wrong here anyway" question, which is singular ("is") for multiple main articles. What could otherwise possibly be the correct main article for categories regarding the Overland Campaign et al, which were series of battles? Clearly it would be preposterous to create the main articles named "Battles of the X Campaign", which the objector falsely indicated exist via his claim "qualifies for Speedy renaming under C2D"? The objections to using the main article names indicates category names should be expanded to be improperly wordy, e.g., Category:Montana to Category:State of Montana, Category:Elevators to Category:Lifting devices that are elevators, Category:Animals to Category:Creatures in the Animal Kingdom, et al. 208.54.40.246 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where I'll likely oppose anyway. Cats don't have to match the main article - and I think the main article is wrong here anyway... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike Selinker that these nominations seem to go beyond the speedy rename criteria and should be proposed in a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I feel like this is three nominations: removing "of the American Civil War," which seems like it qualifies for Speedy renaming under C2D; removing "Battles of the," which seems like it doesn't qualify under any Speedy criterion; and combining the last three, which also doesn't qualify under any Speedy criterion. Accordingly, I'd suggest it go to a full nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Formula One drivers from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland Formula One drivers – C2C: "Y X" format is used for the tree at Category:Formula One drivers by nationality. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Rally drivers from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland rally drivers – C2C: per all other subcats of Category:Rally drivers by nationality. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Partial objections to the above two suggestions. "Northern Ireland Formula One drivers" is non-standard English. For example, there is presumably a category Category:English rally drivers, which is standard naming. Is there a category called Category:England rally drivers? The naming should fit the nearest convention and be consistent throughout. In fact, looking at the categories, the ones for Northern Ireland seem to be the only non-standard ones there. Exceptions would be the likes of Category:New Zealand rally drivers because New Zealand is an exception to the standard: there is no such thing as "New Zealish". However, I didn't know until looking that there was a standard for the United Arab Emirates (United Arab Emirati). My suggestions are below, for the same reasons as highlighted above: --81.131.127.141 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Formula One drivers from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish Formula One drivers – C2C: "Y X" format is used for the tree at Category:Formula One drivers by nationality.
- Category:Rally drivers from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish rally drivers – C2C: per all other subcats of Category:Rally drivers by nationality.
- Some time ago there were extended CFD discussions about how to treat the NI categories. I thought "Northern Ireland FOO" was the most logical, à la Category:Dominica people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, but the consensus decision was to change the format and go with "FOO from Northern Ireland". I think it was the wrong decision, but we would need a new consensus to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- As noted, "Northern Irish" was explicitly removed at an old CfD. I believe that CFDS is appropriate to change the "Foo from" format to "Northern Ireland Foo" where the "Y X" format is used in the entire rest of the tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some time ago there were extended CFD discussions about how to treat the NI categories. I thought "Northern Ireland FOO" was the most logical, à la Category:Dominica people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, but the consensus decision was to change the format and go with "FOO from Northern Ireland". I think it was the wrong decision, but we would need a new consensus to change it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- This can't be so: "Northern Ireland FOO" was explicitly rejected by the discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Other changes at CFDS to "NIreland Foo" format have passed without objection, and WP:IAR would seem to allow it even if WP:NCCAT did not. WP:COMMONSENSE says that while it was rejected for the categories as a whole, they should match their trees, be they "X of Y" or "Y X", just like every other category is required to. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of those changes having been made and I doubt anyone else is either. But if a specific change is proposed and explicitly rejected by consensus in a full discussion, doesn't that suggest to you that if we're going to move to that format it needs to be discussed to see if consensus has changed? (I would be very careful in this area, as the previous discussion was full of users with very certain ideas about what would be appropriate and what would not. I imagine they would not appreciate the speedy criteria being used to change what was agreed to by consensus.) This is not a matter of IAR: it goes to the heart of what consensus means and how we measure if it is changed. We've also got to remember that categories fall into mulitple trees, and one of those trees for people is Category:People from Northern Ireland, so speedily departing from this format conflicts with the pre-existing tree. It is a case of conflicting trees—all the more reason not to use the speedy process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that at the time. Regardless though, this absolutely needs to be taken to a full CfD, as "Foo people/Fooian people" is the format used by the Category:People by nationality tree. One size does not fit all, and perhaps an individual CfD would not be as contientious as the massive one before? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are currently two deviations: Category:People from Georgia (country) and Category:People from Northern Ireland. But why would we change one or two categories within the entire Category:People from Northern Ireland tree? As I mentioned above, I favoured and still prefer the "Northern Ireland FOO" format, but I also believe in respecting the previous consensus and not overturning it in a piecemeal fashion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yet this is what happened to the previous concensus. (my IP address has changed, but I am the same contributor to this discussion as the previous IP entrant 81.131.127.141) --86.130.252.87 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I meant - to rename the whole "People" tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are currently two deviations: Category:People from Georgia (country) and Category:People from Northern Ireland. But why would we change one or two categories within the entire Category:People from Northern Ireland tree? As I mentioned above, I favoured and still prefer the "Northern Ireland FOO" format, but I also believe in respecting the previous consensus and not overturning it in a piecemeal fashion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that at the time. Regardless though, this absolutely needs to be taken to a full CfD, as "Foo people/Fooian people" is the format used by the Category:People by nationality tree. One size does not fit all, and perhaps an individual CfD would not be as contientious as the massive one before? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of those changes having been made and I doubt anyone else is either. But if a specific change is proposed and explicitly rejected by consensus in a full discussion, doesn't that suggest to you that if we're going to move to that format it needs to be discussed to see if consensus has changed? (I would be very careful in this area, as the previous discussion was full of users with very certain ideas about what would be appropriate and what would not. I imagine they would not appreciate the speedy criteria being used to change what was agreed to by consensus.) This is not a matter of IAR: it goes to the heart of what consensus means and how we measure if it is changed. We've also got to remember that categories fall into mulitple trees, and one of those trees for people is Category:People from Northern Ireland, so speedily departing from this format conflicts with the pre-existing tree. It is a case of conflicting trees—all the more reason not to use the speedy process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Other changes at CFDS to "NIreland Foo" format have passed without objection, and WP:IAR would seem to allow it even if WP:NCCAT did not. WP:COMMONSENSE says that while it was rejected for the categories as a whole, they should match their trees, be they "X of Y" or "Y X", just like every other category is required to. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- This can't be so: "Northern Ireland FOO" was explicitly rejected by the discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe there was a CfD prior to that which standardised and normalised the categories to "Northern Irish", back when the categories were far less consistent. This was reversed by the newer one. As I am semi-retired now from editing here, perhaps you could go to the trouble of proposing a new CfD to see what the consensus is to change back to the standard, Good Olfactory? I think English is more logical than England. Ditto for Northern Irish, Scottish, Argentine, Welsh, Australian, Japanese etc, as opposed to Northern Ireland FOOs, Scotland FOOs, Argentina FOOs, Australia FOOs, and Japan FOOs. The former are standard and widely used, and the latter are non-standard - incongruent with English language practice. --81.131.127.141 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course "English" and "Scottish" are used, as are the other ones you mention. But the issue is what to use instead of "Northern Irish", since there has been a consensus not to use that terminology in that one particular case because there is no "Northern Irish" nationality—by law and per the peace agreements people from Northern Ireland are either Irish nationals or British nationals. That's why there was a debate on whether to use "Northern Ireland FOOs" or "FOOs from Northern Ireland", which came down in favour of the latter. I'm pretty loath to re-open the issue, since it was so vitriolic at the time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to why the issue is "what to use instead of Northern Irish", when Northern Irish is the correct denonym. Could you please point out the specific legislation which suggests that Northern Irish isn't a nationality? It is a country. Therefore the inhabitants are FOO-ish or FOO-ians or FOO-ese etc. Also, whilst you're looking for the legislation which suggests that Northern Irish isn't a nationality, can you please direct me to where one would get an English passport. Or a Scottish passport. Or a Welsh passport. And, while we're at it, can you direct me to where one would procure a Texan passport.
- I will point out that the previous consensus had been to standardise all the categories. I don't see that the debate was "vitriolic" during either the first or second CfD debates.
- You cannot say that people from Northern Ireland are "either Irish nationals or British nationals". No such law exists (and if one does, and I've missed it, please point it out to me). A document called The Agreement, signed in Belfast on Good Friday 1998, did recognise peoples right to identify politically: "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (emphasis my own). That was an international treaty, but didn't actually change any laws. It did prompt changes to laws.
- The laws, as they stand now, are not actually very much different to what they were before 1998. Each person born in Northern Ireland is automatically a British citizen under British law. Each Northern Irish person also has the option of adopting citizenship of the Republic of Ireland, if they so choose. Adopting citizenship of the Republic of Ireland doesn't affect their status as a British citizen and vice-versa.
- None of that, however, has anything to do with the denonym Northern Irish. --81.131.127.141 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to propose that they all be renamed if that's what you want, but we're not going to solve it on the speedy rename page, and I don't think it's worthwhile discussing the legal aspects. I mentioned it only because I did not know how much background knowledge the anonymous editor had. When I said the discussion was vitriolic, I was referring not only to individual CFD discussions themselves—some of which were fine—but also to the entire history of the discussions and all of the surrounding discussions that have taken place on talk pages and user talk pages. There were many instances of vitriol, and some temporary blocks also resulted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- They should be made to conform to the trees they are in. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are conflicting trees, though, since it is also in the Category:People from Northern Ireland tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- This should indeed be "Northern Ireland (X)." It's always either "(demonym) people" or, if no demonym is suitable, "(country) people". We should reopen this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that, so long as all (or at least the majority) or categories are nominated. Or, if a test nomination is desired, we could just nominate Category:People from Northern Ireland and notify the appropriate Wikiprojects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that any change should not be made 'speedily', though I would suggest making changes which conform to the current consensus would be OK to do. I am not sure that I, as an anonymous editor, have the 'right' to nominate such a proposal though, which is why I asked if you could do it in my stead, Olfactory. I understand if you are unwilling to, or haven't the time. If I can do it, then please point me in the right direction with a link, and I will make the proposition. I don't even know if my 'vote' as an anonymous editor, would be 'allowed' or considered. --86.130.252.87 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that, so long as all (or at least the majority) or categories are nominated. Or, if a test nomination is desired, we could just nominate Category:People from Northern Ireland and notify the appropriate Wikiprojects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- This should indeed be "Northern Ireland (X)." It's always either "(demonym) people" or, if no demonym is suitable, "(country) people". We should reopen this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are conflicting trees, though, since it is also in the Category:People from Northern Ireland tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course "English" and "Scottish" are used, as are the other ones you mention. But the issue is what to use instead of "Northern Irish", since there has been a consensus not to use that terminology in that one particular case because there is no "Northern Irish" nationality—by law and per the peace agreements people from Northern Ireland are either Irish nationals or British nationals. That's why there was a debate on whether to use "Northern Ireland FOOs" or "FOOs from Northern Ireland", which came down in favour of the latter. I'm pretty loath to re-open the issue, since it was so vitriolic at the time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Category:People from Guernica to Category:People from Guernica (town) – C2B per Guernica (town) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let's first discuss my renaming proposals listed at Talk:Guernica (town).--Jordiferrer (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved Guernica (town) to Guernica per discussion there. I've also created Category:Guernica. Shall we end this nomination?--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let's first discuss my renaming proposals listed at Talk:Guernica (town).--Jordiferrer (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Ready for deletion
Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.
Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.