Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3[edit]

Category:Political families by country[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The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn (self-close by nominator). Sorry folks, this was a bad idea, and there's no point in wasting people's time by leaving it open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Political families by country to Category:Political families by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of sub-categoriess of Category:People by nationality.
(Note, on these grounds it would qualify as a speedy rename, but I have brought it here in case editors feel that the convention applies only to individual people rather than to families). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS I have just noticed Category:Families by nationality, which suggests that nationality is already the convention for this part of the tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not rename The subcats are all named 'Political families of country'; none are named 'nationality Political families. On the other hand, all subcats of Category:Families by nationality are named 'nationality Families' so that category is also properly named. If necessary to rename Category:Political families by country, all its subcats need to be renamed as well. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Am I alone in thinking that Category:West family (for instance) is not a satisfactory name for a category? Occuli (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nation and country are two separate concepts, The Kennedys are an Irish political family of the US 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Whther this is a legitimate proposal depends on how far a person can be a politician in a country of which they are not a national. As far as those in government are concerned, I suspect the answer is that the two are in practice identical, since few countries allow foreign natioanls into government, but it may be quite different when it comes to political activities. Gandhi (an Indian) started his political activities in South Africa. Tariq Ali was an Iraqi left-wing political activist in Britain; no doubt naturalised at some stage. Peter Haine, the anti-apartheid campaigner (later a Brtish MP and at one time a minister) was originally South African; also no doubt naturalised. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (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:Trade unions of country[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 as nominated. There wasn't much enthusiasm to make this change, but there was even less enthusiasm in opposing it, so we'll do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: WP:NCCAT explicitely lists trade unions as example for categories that are named "... of country", though a reason for this is not given.

This stems from a discussion in 2006 where the previous naming scheme (e.g. "Chinese trade unions" or "French trade unions") was overturned in favor of the current naming scheme. While the nominator had proposed "Trade unions in country", a compromise was found at "Trade unions of country". The major argument at that time was:

“If there is a change it should be to "Trade unions of" in line with the convention used for companies and various other types of organisation. Organisations are and should be categorised by where they are based, as some of them operate in more than one country so categorisation by country of operation would lead to category clutter.” (CalJW)

However, the naming convention this argument refers to has changed in the meantime. The categories for most types of organizations, including companies, parties and much more are now following the "in country" convention. Only the parent categories are named following the "based in country" convention to avoid transnationally operating organizations to be listed in several countries. This convention was established shortly afterwards in this discussion. The nominators key argument for "in country" was there:

“In regard to "in country" or "of country", both options have merits and drawbacks. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations such as Category:Companies by country and Category:Trade unions by country currently use "of country", but "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state, for example Category:Organizations of the People's Republic of China. "In country" does not have that confusion with the state, though it may also be slightly ambiguous as multinational organizations may operate within more than one, or in fact within several states. "Organizations headquartered in Foo" or "Organizations based in Foo" are also offered for consideration.” (Kurieeto, emphasis added by me)

Now in the case of trade unions we usually don't face the problem of transnationally active organizations. Trade unions are pretty much bound to their home countries' legislation and its specific labour structure and usually - like it or not - to the interests of their national economy. This is why even if they might cooperate with each other, they don't expand their own activities beyond their homecountry. This means, the "based in" naming scheme is not necessary here.

However, the argument that "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state does apply here as well. While there might be countries where trade unions are monolithic and state-driven, this is certainly the exception. Even in countries with a few major unions there is usually also a multitude of minor independent unions, so there is not a single workers' representation body. So we need to treat trade unions like any other organizations, and not like a specific feature or facet of the country itself (such as "Economy of...", "Politics of..." etc.)

Finally, there's a plenitude of country specific articles on trade union, and all are consistently named after the scheme "Trade unions in..." (see on top of Category:Trade unions by country). Consistency to the corresponding categories would be worth striving for, and for the reason given above, the "Trade unions in" scheme is preferable.

Of course, the record in WP:NCCAT would have to be updated moving trade unions as the single last type of organizations (even more the last type of societal groups) down to the "in country" scheme.

PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have looked at this several times over the last few day, but haven't reached a conclusion. I'm not sure that "Unions of country" actually poses any practical problems, and while I do take the point that as voluntary associations, unions are entities in a country rather than features of that country, I don't see that this a problem in practice. However, the national subcats of companies Category:Companies by country all use the format "Companies of country". Why treat the two differently? --20:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow, the first comment after five days - my rationale was obviously too detailed, so I try to put it in a nutshell.
    Firstly, the naming does pose practical problems as most corresponding main articles are named "Trade unions in...", while some are named "Labor unions in...", however not one article is named "Trade unions of...". Now we can discuss how important consistency is or whether inconsistency might be acceptable to some extent. However, IMHO a naming scheme should be as consistent as possible for some good reasons. And in any case it needs to be obvious or at least understandable why we use "of" here and "in" there. There might be more drastic cases of misnaming, but the negative implications of this case are practical enough.
    Now we can discuss whether the categories are wrongly named or rather the articles. And yes, there is a slight but important difference to companies: companies are based in exactly one country but often operate transnationally, union's don't. And while I'd certainly prefer to use "based in" for companies as well, this is a different case. You correctly pointed to the fact that unions are "entities in", not "features of" a country. So let this be our guideline for the distinction in WP:NCCAT.
    To put it even more in a nutshell: there are some valid concrete arguments for the move, including trans-namespace consistency with the main articles and avoiding unions to be mistaken as "features of a country". Plus: there is the argument of consistency within the categorization scheme. On the other side there is only the argument not to change the status quo unless there are good arguments for a change. A clear case, IMHO — PanchoS (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanksfor the reply, PanchoS. I think I differ from you on several points: a) companies are also not "features of" a country; b) a company which wants to operate in another country has to open a subsidiary company, so it's not actually the same legal entity in both countries; c) quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country (e.g. a lot of Irish journalists are in the UK-based National Union of Journalists, and some Dublin-based unions also organise in Northern Ireland), while other represent members who have been posted abroad.
    So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but your response again seems to me either inconsiderate or biased.
    ad a) Who said companies were "features of" a country? I certainly didn't. If you're building up a strawboard character just to have an easy time knocking it down, have fun, but don't expect it to be taken seriously.
    ad b) Yep, a company has its headquarter in exactly one country though it might have subsidiaries abroad. A fact I certainly didn't question and certainly no disagreement between me and you.
    ad c) I doubt that quite a lot of unions recruit in more than one country, with the National Union of Journalists maybe being one of the few exceptions. The central task of unions are wage negotiations, which are highly bound to national jurisdiction, minimum wages, the national health insurance system etc. Even if you came up with a few more exceptions, this wouldn't make a substantial difference to the overall picture. And for cases like the NUJ (just like with companies), it remains open whether the same legal entity operates in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. So in any case this isn't considerably related to my argumentation.
    You're ending with the words "So I don't think that the distinction is as clear as you suggest." Sorry, but as I assume you read my argumentation, this really has a touch of a diversionary manoeuvre combined with FUD tactics. My argumentation doesn't even build on the distinction you're attacking, in the contrary I stressed the similarities in my argumentation.
    I'm perfectly fine with being overturned by good arguments. But if it's all about "I just don't like it" or maybe "I just don't like you", just say so and possibly tell me why you feel this way. Otherwise please answer to my arguments or bring up new ones. PanchoS (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PanchoS, as I set in my first response, I am genuinely unsure about this one, and am trying to explore the issues by raising the questions which seem relevant. That's all.
    Accusing me of me of "building up a strawboard character", "diversionary maneouvres", "FUD" etc is misplaced and does nothing to help build a consensus. Would you like to reconsider that reply? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear BrownHairedGirl, my wording was certainly a bit harsh, finally we're not even dealing with a particularly controversial topic. On the other side I had the strong feeling that you were not interested in building a consensus. This is exactly because I respect you as an experienced and competent contributor, and you did write that you looked at this several times, so for me it's quite hard to come to a different interpretation. Now, I'm perfectly ready to cool down and get back to the arguments without any anger being left on my side. Finally, we're all human and not machines. And we will finally come to an authorative decision, whatever the decision will be. PanchoS (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This relisting was suggested, partly due to the fact that a relevant WikiProject was notified late, and partly due to lack of participants; the latter may be partly due to the fact that this discussion was originally listed on an overloaded CfD page (93 discussions). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "in", since there are a number of international unions which have no national affiliation. The IWW for example states explicitly that they are not a union of any particular country (and often gleefully ignore the State's legislation on what constitutes a union). Furthermore, as an anarchist, I don't recognize the existence of any nation other than "Earth." The fact that lots of people happen to believe in the social fiction of countries does not mean we need to imply some sort of nationalist ownership for every organization which happens to be located in the geographical region claimed by the people who believe in that country -- particularly when the people in that organization may not recognize such ownership. (PS: I'm not sure where folks want comments to go, so I added this to the very bottom. If it should be somewhere else, please feel free to move it where it belongs.) SmashTheState (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever, unions are both entities in a country and features of their socio-economic system. Category:Economy of the United Kingdom works fine so I don't see any reason to change this but, if making this minor switch will make your life happier, go ahead and live the dream buddy! RevelationDirect (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While many trade unions have indeed been co-opted by the status quo (and indeed, there are some which were founded specifically to destroy the labour movement, such as the Christian Labour Association of Canada), radical labour unions remain true to the original goals of organized labour, which were to wrest control of the means of production from the bosses. Far from being part of the socio-economic system, radical labour seeks to smash those systems of oppression and replace them entirely. Whether or not you agree with this, it is incorrect to assume that all unions are necessarily a "feature" of the economic and political status quo. SmashTheState (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak rename to to use "in", as nominated. I am not persuaded that there is any particular problem caused by using "of foo", and some of the nominators arguments are contradicted by SmashTheState, but "in foo" is probably a slightly better fit to the conventions of Category:Organizations by country. However, I do share RevelationDirect's thought that this is a bit of a "whatever" discussion about very minor points of semantics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, bhg etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2010 (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.

21st-century gamblers[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete both, per the general consensus against 20th and 21st-century categories of people-by-occupation-by century, which create unnecessary category clutter. The one article in these two categories is already in sufficient poker categories, so no reason to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obviously, there is a move afoot to categorize every bio article about someone who lived in the 21st century into a "21st-century OCCUPATION" category. I don't think this blanket approach is a good idea. It makes more sense to approach each case individually and ask if we need to divide the articles by century. Here, I can't say that I find the division useful; I think it's kind of similar to the 21st-century sportspeople categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rationales given above.Autarch (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (since merger will do nothing), according to much recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my long-standing support of deletion of per-century categories. Debresser (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2010 (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:Checker O'Reilly Auto Parts 500[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Checker O'Reilly Auto Parts 500 to Category:NASCAR races at Phoenix International Raceway
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the recent changeover of all NASCAR race categories to their racetracks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename as these race names change faster than a revolving door and should be associated with their location, not their title of the day. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Alansohn, and per the logic of the previous group renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 4 March 2010 (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:Cashel[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cashel to Category:Cashel, County Tipperary
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Cashel, County Tipperary, because the current name is ambiguous (see Cashel (disambiguation)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (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.

Fashion designers by century[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 and merge as nominated. — ξxplicit 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Merge & delete, per general consensus against 20th- and 21st-century categorisations of people-by-occupation, which cause category clutter on articles (because the articles will already be in a sub-act of Category:Fashion designers by nationality. In any case the time periods are too broad and arbitrary to produce a useful division. Fashion designer#History notes that only clothing created after 1858 could be considered as fashion design, so I am not sure what potential that leaves for a 19th-century category ... but in any case there is currently no Category:19th-century fashion designers.
Three categories nominated here currently contain only 3 articles in total. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not nominate Category:21st-century people by occupation and Category:20th-century people by occupation? Is the idea that for certain occupations, catting by the these two centuries is okay but for others not? And a note needs to be put on Category:People by occupation and century indicating that its only applicable to and including the 19th-century, as that is where the majority seems headed. And what about Category:21st-century people by nationality? Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a clear consensus so far that all 20th- and 21st-century categories of sportspeople are a form of overcategorisation; none of those nominated at CFD has been kept, and I have nominated them in small groups to facilitate checking that they are correctly upmerged to the relevant categories for that sport.
      As to other 20th- and 21st-century occupation categories, I am not yet sure whether there is a general consensus to delete all of them; it seems more appropriate to examine them one-at-a-time and see whether there is any particular utility to any of them.
      Category:21st-century people by nationality seems to me like another really bad idea. It was kept at Cfd 2009 June 29, but without many participants. I think that it should be revisited soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. I might support a division by decade (e.g. Category:Fashion designers active in the 1970s) given the ever-changing nature of fashion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with these time blocs is that while shorter ones (such as by-decade) are more likely to group people who were actually contemporaries, people's careers don't fit neatly into blocs bounded by years ending in zero, so most people will end up in more than one such category, which gets cluttersome. Can you imagine the effect on an article like Yves St Laurent, Paul Smith, or Katharine Hamnett? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree you could have multiple categories, but I think the minimal "clutter" they contribute would be outweighed by their usefulness to the reader. Even the iconic YSL would have only four categories (50s-80s), 3 cats for KH (80s-00s), 4 cats for PS (70s-00) and these are outliers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The living ones would also get categories for the 2010s, and you seem to to missing the start of their careers, so Katharine Hamnett & Paul Smith would be in 5 categories (70s-10s). I'm also unsure why you think they are unusual; I wasn't aware of fashion designers making a habit of dying young like rock stars :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obviously, there is a move afoot to categorize every bio article about someone who lived in the 20th and/or 21st century into a "20th-century" and/or "21st-century OCCUPATION" category. I don't think this blanket approach is a good idea, nor do I think deleting them all at once would be a good idea. It makes more sense to approach each case individually and ask if we need to divide the articles by century. Here, I can't say that I find the division useful, given the relatively young age of "fashion designing" as a recognised occupation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to much recent precedent. I would oppose a category by decade, since a person's working life lasts 40+ years. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (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:Doping cases in sport by nationality[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Doping cases in sport by nationality to Category:Sportspeople in doping cases by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the sub-categories, all of which take the form "Fooian sportspeople in doping cases". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 3 March 2010 (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 science popularizers[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. — ξxplicit 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Irish science popularizers to Category:Irish science writers
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Science writers by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Calling someone a "science popularizer" seems a bit POV. Standard naming is better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2010 (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.

FR Yugoslavia[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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per main article/category: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge up (changed my opinion on this after considering additional facts, see below — PanchoS (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)): The 'Federal republic of Yugoslavia' was legally the successor of the 'Socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia' even though all republics but Serbia and Montenegro seceded from the federation. So I don't see why we would want to maintain distinct categories for the former and the latter federation. E.g., we didn't do this in the case of Pakistan (before/after Bangladesh seceded) nor in the case of Ethiopia (before/after Eritrea seceded). This would mean these (and possibly a few more) categories should be moved or merged to Category:Yugoslav footballers, Category:Yugoslav politicians or Category:Yugoslav expatriates. It is only at some point between 2003 (when the federation was renamed to 'Serbia and Montenegro') and 2006 (dissolution of the federation) that we would make the cut for a new nationality, see also Template:Yug-timeline. PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: all of these categories were only created in 2009. While this doesn't automatically mean they were not justified, it gives an indication that their existence has never been obvious, and it means that we wouldn't abandon a time-proven categorization scheme by merging them up. PanchoS (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Have no opinion as to rename proposed by PanchoS. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge up per PanchoS. These should all just be merged into the corresponding categories for "Yugoslav FOO". Second choice: rename per nom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Changed vote after relist.[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: While there's clear consensus that the current categories should be either renamed or upmerged, there's no consensus yet as to which one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename. Do not merge - FR Yugoslavia considerably different geographically from preceding incarnations of 'Yugoslavia', far more so than either Pakistan or Ethiopia, and we keep Category:West Germany even though it and the present Germany are the FRG. Mayumashu (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secessions of Slovenia and Croatia already happened in 1991 while the country was still named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This article states that "The federal institutions of SFR Yugoslavia by this time all but ceased to function. The state was still formally in existence, comprising Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina."
    So if we want to justify acknowledgement of a new country, we're talking just about the March 1st, 1992 secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina leading to the re-formation of the remaining republics as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, it is further stated that the "claimed succession to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [...] was not granted legitimacy by the international community, and Yugoslavia was considered completely dissolved into five successor states, so Yugoslavia was considered completely dissolved into five successor states." If this fact can be proved correct, this does mean that I was certainly wrong stating the FRY were the legal successor of the SFRY.
    However, the country was later renamed to "Serbia and Montenegro" (which definitely was the legal successor of the FRY). Mere renames of countries occured quite often (especially in former European colonies, but also after the Revolutions of 1989) and we don't grant separate categories for mere renames, rather we update the categories to reflect the new name. This means that it would be reasonable to rename these categories to "Serbia and Monetenegro expatriates", "Serbia and Monetenegro footballers" and so on.
    I'd also support a rename per nom now, but I think this needs to receive some more scrutiny. — PanchoS (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm convinced that Pancho is on the right track here. However, b/c it is relatively confusing, I support a simple rename to expand the abbreviation, and then after this is done I would support a new nomination to rename these to "Serbia and Montenegro". I think if we go stepwise in this manner, it will be easier to get consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sound's good. Let's try it this way. Sorry for changing my original vote, but I was not aware of the fact the succession was not internationally recognized (though nationally enforced). PanchoS (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why do we need either Category:FR Yugoslavia expatriates or Category:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia expatriates? Rather than maintain expatriate categories for every state which ever existed in the area, wouldn't it be much simpler to categorise expatriates by the state which governs whatever part of the Former Yugoslavia they came from? As things stand, a woman who left her village near Belgrade in 1985 would be categorised as an expatriate of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; her cousin who followed in 1995 would be categorised as an expatriate of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and a niece who left in 2005 would be categorised as an expatriate of the Republic of Serbia. Their great aunt who left in 1935 would be an expatriate of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, so these four women from the same house in the same village are in four different expatriate categories. How does this help navigation? Why don't we categorise them all as Serbian expatriates? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case you describe really seems to be absurde and in some way it is. However, while using "Serbian expatriates" for all of them would certainly help navigation, it would mean we are no more categorizing by nationality but:
      Categorizing by ethnicity? Yugoslavia was a multiethnic country much more than it still is. Same holds for the area now belonging to the Republic of Serbia. So the woman from this village near Belgrade (happening to be of Serbian ancestry) would be a Serbian expatriate, her husband would be both a Croatian expatriate and an Albanian expatriate and their children were Yugoslav expatriates? That would certainly make things even more complicated plus highly contentious.
      Categorizing by the country a certain area now belongs to? Would certainly bring us many, many new problems. Imagine the ethnically Serbian expatriate of Yugoslavia who used to live somewhere in Slavonia before emigrating to the UK in 1990. She would now be categorized as a Croatian expatriate which she would probably fight tooth and nail. Or the ethnically German Königsberg expatriate of 1940 would suddenly become a Russian expatriate? Or the 1940 British India emigrant from Dhaka would become now a Bangladeshi expatriate? Sounds all just as absurde and even more complicated.
      What we could do indeed is create subcategories for the Socialist Republic of Serbia (subordinate to both Yugoslavia and Serbia), and subcategories for the Republic of Serbia (federal) (subordinate both to "Serbia and Montenegro" or "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and to Serbia). This way we'd have the categories at least connected to each other. PanchoS (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break up as follows:
  • Suggest -- Pre-1992 expatriates should be "Yugoslav expatriates"; post-1992 ones should be categorised by successor republic. Where places change status, a "perfect" system is impractical, particularly where changes have eben so frequent. The football and politician categories probably need to be kept, becasue they did play for/govern FR Yugoslavia when it existed, but I wonder if there may be room for merging the football categories (not investigated). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (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.

Arena Football League[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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: Arena Football League (1987–2008). A discussion to merge this with Arena Football League (2010) ended in a stalemate and Arena Football League has been turned into a dab page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories that have continuity between either AFL (that is, many teams moved from the old one to the new one, so a subcategory or article within it is equally applicable or shows the progression from one to the other):

These are pretty fast-and-loose divisions and I am open to others' feedback on tagging/renaming/merging/splitting, etc. While it's not urgent to come up with a solution immediately, it is probably desirable to do so before the new league starts play and players/franchises/etc. start crossing over from one to the other, making this matter more complicated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - sounds eminently reasonable. Occuli (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to reflect the change to the parent article necessitated by a new 2010 incarnation of the AFL. Alansohn (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. AFAICS from reading Arena Football League (2010), the change was basically commercial: the league went broke, was refounded with a similar name and a few new teams, and then adopted the old name. This is no different in effect from a league deciding to admit new teams, so why not just merge Category:Arena Football 1 into Category:Arena Football League? Unless we do that, we will have two near-identical category trees causing category-clutter on articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2010 (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:SourceForge projects[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly broad categories and the hosting site is hardly a defining characteristic for any software. I had a quick look at Comparison of open source software hosting facilities, but these seem the only ones with a category. Consider any similar categories I've missed as included in this nomination as well. Pcap ping 05:31, 3 March 2010 (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:Dudley-Winthrop family[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. — ξxplicit 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dudley-Winthrop family to Category:Dudley–Winthrop family
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Dudley–Winthrop family and WP:DASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 3 March 2010 (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.

Richards–Young family[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: merge. — ξxplicit 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Richards family to Category:Richards–Young family
Propose merging Category:Young family to Category:Richards–Young family
Nominator's rationale: There is already a lot of cross-pollination between these two categories, and they share the same main article: Richards–Young family. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 3 March 2010 (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.

BYU[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: WP:DASH "Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I moved the articles in these categories as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved them back because of what I've said below; they can be formally proposed for a move if you think they need to be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I generally support the guidelines in WP:DASH, I think this would be a misapplication of the guidelines because the entire names in these cases ("Brigham Young University–Idaho" and "Brigham Young University–Hawaii") are one unified proper noun. With proper nouns, my understanding is that we generally accept the formatting that the subject has adopted as its name and we don't try to impose WP guidelines. The situation is different when we have a category name which is purely descriptive and not a proper noun, as in Category:Canada – United States border; in those situations, we follow the formatting set out by WP:ENDASH. As a side point, I don't know of any university which has placed spaces around a dash in its proper name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if it is relevant, but at least two of the above categories were renamed in 2008 to what they are now.--Rockfang (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Good Olfactory, and move back the articles too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Good Olfactory. We've had several of these 'US University-somewhere' creatures and left the spacing alone (in defiance of WP:DASH). There is even a photo somewhere of a roadsign to an evidently unspaced dashed university ... there is more pertinently the BYUH website which wavers between dash and en-dash but is definitely unspaced. Incidentally Koavf has also moved Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne. Occuli (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Renames to maintain match to titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (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:Kolkata hawkers unions[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: Upmerge to Category:Trade unions of India. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kolkata hawkers unions to Category:Hawkers' unions in India and/or Category:Trade unions of West Bengal
Nominator's rationale: Rename and refactor. The tailoring of this category seems to be quite narrow, so it might make more sense to open it to all India. This would also help avoiding separate articles on 20 different local-scale hawkers' unions per Indian city. PanchoS (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2010 (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:AICCTU-affiliated unions[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:
--Xdamrtalk 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: per main and to expand cryptic acronym. Adhere to the simple naming scheme used for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to avoid the reduncancies something like All India Central Council of Trade Unions-affiliated unions or Trade Unions affiliated to the All India Central Council of Trade Unions would bring. PanchoS (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note by the nominator: You were so fast that I couldn't even add the missing ones. :) Please double-check if you are as well okay with the others. No more cats to be added here now. Oh, and I certainly thought about the wonderful option Category:All India Central Council of Trade Unions trade unions but discarded it to avoid being funny ;-) Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2010 (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:Kappa Mikey[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kappa Mikey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Almost all content was redirected or deleted, leaving only the character and episode lists (as well as two articles currently up for deletion and not at all likely to survive). Clearly not enough for a category; series has ended so there's no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:34, 3 March 2010 (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/2010_March_3&oldid=1144513675"