Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 26 September 28 >

September 27[edit]

Low-carb categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on renaming, delete the two subcats. Kbdank71 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per lead article Low-carbohydrate diet. The abbreviated form "carb" is rather slang and does not ubiquitously refer to nutrition. Sub-categories might be deletable as non-defining (and bordering on promotional). — CharlotteWebb 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - how low, objectively speaking, do the carbs need to be before something is considered "low-carb"? Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A dictionary only reflects popular usage and it should be noted that a Google search of low-carb nets 10,800,000 results versus only 1,790,000 for low-carbohydrate. Today's slang is tomorrow's proper term. And to argue that there is no precise definition of low-carb so therefore all categories should be deleted, makes absolutely no sense as Stanford, Duke, the University of Minnesota, and others have used this term in regard to recent studies. --Goodrule (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Low-carbohydrate diet opens with 20-60 as being the low carb target, so there is at least some guidance for this area. The problem with the last two is that in a lot of ways they are subjective. What good is served by eating a low carb meal if the rest of a persons diet is not? It's this question that has me unsure about Category:Low-carb packaged foods. I'm not convinced that this is a good category here. I think the main article will justify the top category, but it may not justify any of the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have much of an opinion on the name but these last two categories have got to go. A category for Low-carb packaged foods!?! Give me a break: this has spam written all over it and the current content is a big joke: peanut butter, pork rind, bacon and jerky, not to mention Slim-Fast low carb shakes, Mission Carb Balance tortillas and CarbSmart ice cream products. As for the restaurant category, please raise your hand if you think that a defining characteristic of T.G.I. Friday's or Cracker Barrel is that they have a low-carb menu. Let's please delete this crap. Pichpich (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Restaurants with low-carb menus. Clearly this includes about every restaurant at one time or another. Undecided on the other two. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To fully appreciate the absurdity of the low-carb packaged foods category, note that it includes just about any packaged meat. Not all though because some of these are processed with sugar. So imagine sifting through Category:Cold cuts, Category:Dried meat, Category:Dried fish (the list goes on and on of course) and picking out the ones without artificially added carbs. By the way, the notion of "packaged food" is a fairly vague one and I don't think the non-existence of Category:Packaged foods is a coincidence. If we take packaged food to be simply food that comes in some sort of package, well then Butterball is a low-carb packaged food! So are eggs (food)! Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hose[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renamingCategory:Hose to Category:Hoses, thanks Mion (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems to me that "hose" is a legitimate plural, but only when dealing with a single type of hose. --Eliyak T·C 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I thought it mean socks. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The cat isn't tagged, BTW. Occuli (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my fault, sorry, but i'm also the creator of this cat, so I thought something simple as renaming to follow naming convention.... Cheers Mion (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it - it is possibly speediable. Occuli (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And oops followed the link to make a notification as the template suggested and autocreated the cat Category:Hoses which is on speedy also. anyway thanks for the help. Mion (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

College basketball[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename per conventions present in parent category Category:College men's basketball players. College basketball player categories are typically specified men's or women's depending on the particular program in question. The ones that do not have nickname differentiation between gendered programs. I think those categories should also be renamed, but that is a more controversial discussion. As an additional piece of compelling evidence, the TSU coaches category includes men's per convention, but the players category does not. matt91486 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Legal history subcategories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Uniformity and conventions for "by country subcats". Proposing this after creating Category:Legal history by country. Pichpich (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Should we add "and Wales"? Probably. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually created Category:Legal history of Wales earlier today. Pichpich (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ?still-ongoing debate on another cat with this issue somewhere. That category does not really help as for the last several centuries there has been no separate Welsh legal system. To be clear, I meant we should probably go to "England and Wales". Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't want to risk hurting Welsh sensibilities. If you look at the current contents of Category:Legal history of Wales, there seem to be articles which are genuinely part of a distinct Welsh legal history. In any case, these should probably all be included in a UK supercategory though I suppose Welsh nationalists might take issue. Pichpich (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a tad underinformed here. Scotland has an entirely separate legal system, & Nothern Ireland - well that's complicated. But England and Wales have a unified legal system, though some legislation may apply to only one or the other. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations: I never claimed I was informed! In any case, I'm tempted to say that Category:Legal history of Wales and Category:Legal history of England should remain distinct (we can still link them using "see also"). From what I understand, your explanations are a convincing argument for merging Category:Welsh law and Category:English law, but that should be debated in a separate CfD. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seems straightforward. __meco (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but do not merge the Wales subcategory into the English subcat. Galanas, for example, is not an English concept and the two histories should be kept apart rather than merged indiscriminately. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency purposes. Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, no consensus on renaming. Kbdank71 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: May be a case of WP:OCAT#Unrelated subjects with shared names.
In mathematics, the category contains those fields that have the word "theory" in their name (measure theory, model theory, number theory, ...) while omitting those that don't (algebra, arithmetic, geometry, ...). This makes no sense whatsoever because the naming is the result of historical accidents and unrelated to any intrinsic qualities of the fields. The situation seems to be similar in other areas.
The current category description (written by me, based on the current content) is absurd. It has survived for almost a year without anyone bothering to repair it. Without a proper definition that makes sense I can't decide whether to remove all branches of mathematics, or to add them all, or to just add mathematics.
I don't feel strongly about deleting this category, but if you vote "strong keep", as some people did in the previous Cfd (which ended no consensus / withdrawn), then presumably you know what the category is about and should write a reasonable description. Hans Adler (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards deletion. Nice case of a category that seems reasonable enough when you create it but turns out to be somewhat meaningless. In particular, the subcategories are of two very distinct type: the X theory and the X theories which is an interesting case of subtle semantic differences between singular and plural. I think an argument for deletion can be made along the lines of "can we exhibit a single example of an article (or subcat) whose categorization would suffer significantly if the category disappears?". I don't see any but am open to reconsider this if anyone comes up with a convincing one. Also, can you link to the previous debate? Pichpich (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the omission, I have put the link into my lengthy rationale now. See also Category talk:Theories and Theory. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the mathematical theories such as the absurdly unrelated "number theories" from the definition. If there is opposition to that, bring to a general discussion, but lets not delete the whole supercaegory for that reason. DGG (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even as a supercategory, I don't think it really works but if it's kept, I think an easy way to clean it up is to remove all subcategories which use "theory" rather than "theories". Seems like a stupid rule of thumb but it actually does the job I think. But there's a deeper problem even with some of these subcats: the intent should be to group theories, i.e. theoretical models or hypotheses but more often than not they also contain terms used in the theoretical study of subject X. See Category:Finance theories for an example of problems and see Category:Geology theories for an example of an adequately focused cat. Pichpich (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it solves the problem. I still have no idea what the category is supposed to contain. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the switch from plural to singular makes a big difference semantically but the underlying problem remains. Pichpich (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What might be called "terms in theory" are more happily accomodated under the singular name, which also broadens the category somewhat, perhaps helping those who can't decide whether to include all maths or none. In other fields the distinction between the theoretical and the non-theoretical is rather clearer, and I think a super-category is useful. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of "terms in theory", and the results of a Google search suggest that I can admit this without exposing too much ignorance. Could you explain what that term means and in what field it arises? --Hans Adler (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear Hans. I meant what PichPich calls above "terms used in the theoretical study of subject X", of which the sub-cats here contain large numbers. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't understand what you wrote. A category for various terms used in the theoretical study of various fields??? Such as "consistency", "discrepance", "discord" and several thousand others??? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Consistency for example is already in a sub-cat of this category. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "consistency" is there because it's a property that a theory may or may not have. "Disclimax", "disclosure", "discoblastic", "discoblastula", "discocarp", "discocephalous", "discodactylous", "discoid", "discoidal", "discoloration" are not in the category and should never be, even if articles for them should exist. (To mention just examples taken from one page Merriam-Webster's.) I wrote "several thousand" for a reason. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having thought about this a bit more, I guess you mean that every subject should have a category for its "theory" terms. I don't agree, I think it falls under WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this guessing. Many of the cats in the tree are called "Foo theory" & contain a mixture of theories and terms used in formulating or discussing them. There seems no harm in this to me, & a rename to "theory" would be a better name for the top category. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't communicate clearly, a prohibition on guessing what you mean makes no sense. I will ignore it and simply abstain from making my guesses explicit. The harm in your proposal is that while the category "theory" (and its subcategories) are only of interest to a few people (sociologists? or what branch are "theory theorists" in?) – and even that is very questionable, at least as far as the subcategories for various sciences are concerned – it would be up to the science editors to decide which of their articles have something to do with "theory". But I am sure most of them are just not interested, and while most subjects have some kind of theory/applications split this is very relative and subjective. (What is "theory" in biology can be "application" in physics.) --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to give you practise with your English. I fail to see how "theory" does not comprehend "theories", but I'm not sure continuing these exchanges is much use for the debate. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since your English is so much better than mine, and you know what this category is about, and you care about it, I am looking forward to reading your category description. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now now children, let's all behave. John: one thing I dislike about your proposal is that broadening, say, the category Category:Geology theories actually has the adverse effect of killing its relevance. Terms used in the theoretical study of subject X are usually classified (appropriately) under categories such as Category:Financial terminology. If we go from plural to singular then we're just creating a confusing series of parallel categories. Pichpich (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing the broadening of anything except the name of the supercategory. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no deletion template at the category. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*blush* I put it on the talk page instead. My only excuse is that I almost never propose anything for deletion (or "discussion"). I tried to fix it, but it didn't work. I will ask for help. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 This is an umbrella category, as noted in the previous CfD, so would be necessarily broad. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the problem is not breadth, it's incoherence. Pichpich (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted before, this is an umbrella category, and is therefore necessarily broad. If the mathematics-related categories are problematic, then move them to a subcategory. I don't think deleting this super category is the solution, and I also don't think what the difference is between theory and theories. --Jiuguang (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving them to a subcategory is no solution. I suspect that the category is supposed to be about scientific theories, according to the usual definition (falsifiable hypotheses). (But since nobody bothers to fix the current absurd definition, which is "This category is intended to contain all other categories and articles which carry the word "theory" in their name or are vaguely related to theories." and makes the category immediately deletable if taken seriously, I don't know if that's the intended purpose.) There is no such thing as a mathematical theory in the sense of scientific theories, see the discussion in Theory. So mathematics would have to be removed completely. Or is a looser sense intended? Then quite likely Category:Mathematics should be a subcategory. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename - I think this super-category makes very good sense for navigational purposes. I also think it might be helpful to rename it to Category:Theory, as suggested by Johnbod, since that is slightly broader conceptually. As for the math theory cats, why not create a new umbrella category, either Category:Mathematical theory or Category:Mathematical theories, in which any articles about math theory and/or theories that don't currently have a dedicated sub-cat can be placed. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my response to Jiuguang above. Depending on the definition of "theory", either there are no mathematical theories at all, or all of mathematics should be a subcategory. That's why I am insisting that those who like this kind of category should provide a proper definition. (Thanks for fixing my stupid mistake!) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in a concrete use case. I can understand why someone might want to drill down from "theory", or "theories", to germ theory of disease, behaviorism and expanding earth theory. But it seems to me that a hypothetical user who drills down from "theory" or "theories" to something mathematical is doing something fundamentally wrong. (Or just doing a random walk, which is of course fine but not what categories are about.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the problems, this seems like a worthwhile high-level container category, drawing together theories from different fields in an interdisciplinary way, something that the Wikipedia category system is very good at doing. Serendipity is a wonderful feature of Wikipedia. The category looks like it needs some work tidying it up, however, but then that can be said of many (most?) Wikipedia categories. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armenian-Iranians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armenian-Iranians to Category:Iranian Armenians
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention of subcats of Category:Armenians by country of citizenship Mayumashu. Note, these are people of full Armenian ethnicity who still subscribe to Armenian culture, in particular religion, and not people simply of Armenian descent (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People associated with Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry to Category:People associated with Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Propose renaming Category:Academics of Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry to Category:Academics of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry to Category:Alumni of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Nominator's rationale: The school has recently adopted a more compact public name. The main article has already been moved, the categories should match the title. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have towns named after them[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. A list could be started at any time; with only one article in the category, it's not worthwhile "listifying" the category contents right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People who have towns named after them to Category:People who have localities named after them
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Towns" is a bit too specific; "localities" allows for more subjects to be placed in the category. Biruitorul Talk 08:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here we go again. Why not use the more generic term from the naming conventions and use Category:People who have settlements named after them? What about people who have counties named after them? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, "settlements" is better. (For the record, I prefer deletion, but at least "towns" should be changed.) Biruitorul Talk 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if not deleted. Currently a single entry category. This would be much better in a sortable table which would also show multiple places named after a single person, something that a category can not possibly show. These entries also should be cited to eliminate misinformation. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not worth encouraging. (There was also Rhodesia, named after Cecil Rhodes.) Occuli (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by no means a defining characteristic for people. A list would do just fine. On the other hand, I think I could tolerate something like Category:Settlements named after people which is somewhat more relevant. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, else listify. --Eliyak T·C 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really defining. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT. The fact that it's newly created for a single entry should've been a clue, one would think. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify or Rename to Category:People who have settlements named after them. This category, name not withstanding, would have reciprocated Category:Eponymous cities, now deleted. I object to that deletion and I would also like to keep this category. __meco (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Delete - based on the comments above, this would seem to work better as a list. Biruitorul Talk 14:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Biruitorul. Note if you want to do this as a list, drop a note on my talk page and I'll help you get the table started. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:CopyrightByWikimedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CopyrightByWikimedia to Category:Files copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation
Nominator's rationale: camelCase should really not be used in categories. The title should also be explicit on what is included. I don't much care for whatever title it ends up being, so feel free to bandy that particular part. Yes, I know there's a (slight) consistency between the projects, so if you want to, feel free to rename to the Commons version, though I would highly avoid abbreviating Wikimedia Foundation -> Wikimedia and Copyrighted to Copyright. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Irish-American conservatism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: multi-merge. Kbdank71 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Irish-American conservatism to Category:Irish-Americans and Category:American conservatives
Nominator's rationale: lists people, conservatives, however it is not convention to list people by political/social orientation and ethic/national origin Mayumashu (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_27&oldid=1074801501"