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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other Usher categories, and disambiguation seems silly here. All subcats should also be renamed Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli to match article Usher (entertainer). This is possible to be confused with a category that categorizes people who are ushers by occupation, and, given the proclivity of new WP users to fail to pluralize categories, such confusion is entirely plausible. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the article which is the most significant factor in this discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the article. --ĈÞЯİŒ1ооо 23:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be any other 'Usher' category created? Yes, there may be possibility for Category:Ushers, but there is no other singular 'Usher' topic. Other categories are disambiguated because there need to be, such as Category:Madonna. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my comment above: "This is possible to be confused with a category that categorizes people who are ushers by occupation, and, given the proclivity of new WP users to fail to pluralize categories, such confusion is entirely plausible." Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose -- The R&B performer is certainly NOT the primary usage of the word "usher". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the title of the parent article and eliminate ambiguity arising from other uses of the term. Alansohn (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (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.
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 all. Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken the liberty of consolidating all of these categories into a single nom here on the page. Whew! Neutral on the change for now though. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude! Chill your jets! I was only seconds away from doing that! (I mean, um, thanks.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. As long as they take out the hated Packers, I'm fine with it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all. 'Personnel' belong to an organization - listed in these categories are people who have belonged to various organizations (i.e. teams, leagues, etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all Never should have been changed to personnel to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, but should it not be "Ice hockey people from Germany" as opposed to "German ice hockey people", etc? Resolute 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but for consistency, support Resolute's suggestion of all being renamed to Ice hockey people from foo as opposed to the varied names listed above where some are suggested to be named that format while others are suggested as Foo ice hockey people. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've changed the nomination above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2011 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (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.
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.
These category names correspond to (perfectly satisfactory) article names, but are inconsistent with them, and use capitals incorrectly. The following table may make the matter clearer:
Support original proposal - oppose revised proposal as it is not necessary. Snappy (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the original proposal necessary but the revised proposal not necessary? What is the evil that must be cured: inappropriate capitalisation or ambiguous political boundaries or both? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be extroited. Snappy (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal is necessary for the reasons I mentioned in the proposal. If there is a question about a particular part of the proposal, please raise it. Disambiguation from Northern Ireland is not required because there are no corresponding categories in Northern Ireland from which distinctions need be made; i.e. there are no ambiguities.— O'Dea 19:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Support revised proposal. The main problem with all these categories is that they're singular and should be plural and that they don't specify a country. I'm sure Ireland is not the only country in the world that has primary roads, secondary roads and/or regional roads! I'm mystified as to why O'Dea and Snappy have not spotted the obvious singular/plural problem especially. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised proposal, the original proposal leaves the very ambigious nationality issue as noted. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised proposal – whilst registering surprise that any regional road, extroited or not, takes us to Ireland. Occuli (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does extroited mean? According to the Oxford English Dictionary (complete edition) introit means "An antiphon or psalm sung while the priest approaches the altar"; "the action of going in"; while extroit is undefined. Extroit does not appear in the Merriam Webster dictionary, either, nor in Wiktionary. — O'Dea 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a word made up by Laurel Lodged and added to several articles, I used in reply to them as a joke. Sometimes humour doesn't work here! Snappy (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not necessary to disambiguate the categories in the Republic of Ireland from those in Northern Ireland because, to quote from the article, Roads in the United Kingdom, "Roads in the UK are classified into M (Motorway), A, and B roads", so the nomenclature is self-disambiguating, i.e. the terms, primary, secondary, and regional, are not used in the UK. The article, Roads in Northern Ireland, explains "The main roads in Northern Ireland...are classified 'M'/'A'/'B' as in Great Britain." The absence of overlapping terminology means disambiguation is built in and does not require "Republic of Ireland" in the category titles. For example, since there is no Category:National Primary road in Northern Ireland, the Republic's Category:National Primary Road does not require "Republic of Ireland" added to it. — O'Dea 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
CommentUser:Laurel Lodged's category tree structure, above, left out regional roads, so it should have looked like this:
I agree that the categories probably ought to be plurals, as suggested by User:Necrothesp, so admitting that change; and with no need for disambiguation from Northern Ireland; and by including regional roads, the structure ought to look like this when the rename is complete:
Rename adding "Republic of Ireland" where missing. There is almost certainly a country soemwhere with similar terminology. I have no strong views on the precise structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2011 (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:Populated places in the Southern Region, Brazil[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (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:Populated places in the Northern Region, Brazil[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Correct translation of the region is "North Region" and other regions use the noun form. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:30, 23 January 2011 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename To match title of parent article and eliminate ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2011 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per other categories disambiguating city name by using the country/state etc. Aditionally, this is the name of the main article in the category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename To match title of parent article and eliminate ambiguity. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure on an established/academic term. But per "common sense" I submit there must be some way to categorise the ways in which people (non-abnormally) collect human remains for ritual/symbolic purposes. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Human remains collecting wouldn't work as well. Trophy is far more fitting. Human body part trophy collecting seems a bit long. I don't think anyone would confuse it. Non-abnormal is original research isn't it? Its normal in certain cultures. Pretty screwed up to do no matter what though. DreamFocus 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current Name (for now): Yuck! Since the main article is Human trophy collecting, I would leave the cat as is until if and when the article is renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (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:Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland[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 per amended nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some good points raised here. The current conventions of Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies derive from an English perspective, because in England the only national Parliament is the UK parliament and its constituencies at Westminster, though of course there is also the European parliament. That is not the case in Ireland, Northern Ireland, or Scotland (and possibly in Wales, depending on how we views the Welsh Assembly as a parliament) ... so it seems to me that a much wider renaming exercise is in order. I don't think that Necrothesp's suggestion of Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland sufficiently clarifies the distinction between the difft Parliaments involved; it could be read as including the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, because they are both in the UK too. So may I suggest that the best way to proceed is to rename the N. Irish category as proposed here so that we can quickly get some local consistency and disambiguation there, and to start a wider discussion at WT:UKPC on a broader renaming of the category tree, with the aim of ensuring a consistent nomenclature for Westminster constituencies across the whole of the UK? If editors would prefer to discuss them all together, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom pending a wider discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Westminster Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. I too do not like UK, as it does not adequately seal with the problem. The present legislatures in Wales and Northern Ireland are "assemblies", not Parliaments, so that there is no ambiguity, but we do need to have a clear indication that constituencies in the old Northern Ireland Parliament and the present Scottish Parliament are for those Parliaments. An acceptable alternative might be Category:Northern Ireland constituencies for United Kingdom Parliamentary. In either case, this needs to be a sample nomination to be followed up by others to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron's formulation of "Westminster Parliamentary constituencies" is clearer than my suggestion in the nom of "Westminster constituencies", so I have amended the nom. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An "Active Fooian thingamajigger" type category is something that isn't really a viable category, I believe. This would make a fine list inside the Russian Air Force page (and probably is), but as a category, it's non-defining and prone to becoming outdated. All articles here are already categorised in proper places, so it should be deleted. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Separate categories for things in the past and present are usually frowned upon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Removing quotes and "in chief," which isn't found in any other editors category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Headbomb's logic. In this case, the org is known by the acronym. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreed. One of the few acronyms, but IEEE seems to be the common way about Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2011 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (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.
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 מישהוOd Mishehu 06:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simple grammar, really. Dogs are creatures that do things. Humans are creatures who do things. Jack of Oz[your turn] 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Dogs area also sentient beings who do things, usually with more sense and less preciousness than monarchs. But since "who" is better grammar for animate beings, support rename. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But agree with BHG that dogs are also creatures who do things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support People requires "who". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2011 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, amended with thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames To match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Channel 5 (United Kingdom) after the article has been renamed accordingly. UK and U.S. in titles should be changed with extreme prejudice. It's ugly and looks unprofessional. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match format of the article name. Until the article name spells out the "UK", the category should not be changed to do so. Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (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:Lists of government ministers of Ireland[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator depopulated this category out-of-process, and only created this nomination after that depopulation was reverted. (See LL's confirmation of this.) This disruptiveness has gone on for months, and LL has repeatedly been warned before not to depopulate categories out-of-process, so I have asked LL to stop all recategorisation or I will seek community-applied editing restrictions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate – another editor who seems unable to distinguish between a person (a minister) and a list (of ministers). I would support any action BHG might wish to take in view of the bizarre alterations LL insists on making to categorisation. Occuli (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can LL justify these 2 edits which remove 2 correct categories and insert an incorrect one? 'The category is an exact duplicate of Category:Government ministers of the Republic of Ireland' (ignoring the many subcats which the one has but the other lacks) only because of LL's erroneous edits. Occuli (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category and approve proposal to sanction nominator if they persist in out of process category depopulation. Snappy (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction between a person (a minister) and a list (of ministers) very well. The problem is, whomever populated these two categories does not. Why else would both contain the same articles? If one cat is for lists, where are all the lists? There is only one. That single one would sit quite comfortably within Category:Government ministers of the Republic of Ireland. Let's stick to the facts, not the hysteria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is very difficult to judge categories when users such as LL empty them out of process. At present the two categories do appear to be identical, making one redundant, but I refrain from voting until it is clarified what the respective purposes of the two categories are. Administrative action against LL, unless clearly repentant would certainly be justified. The articles have a rather better structure than their UK equivalents, where there is a separate article on each successive change of title, and plain lists, rather than tables including precise dates and parties. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2011 (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.
