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:Close both Let's let the current discussions and consensual editorial work continue before nominating to CfD. - jc37 06:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. C2D1: To match with the article on the same topic. Censorship is carried out by the state and is the same across the country, from the island of Taiwan, to Kinmen and Matsu. Jeffrey (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article on the country is Taiwan not Republic of China (which redirects). The article on censorship should instead be moved since the last RM was influenced by the prior location of the country article. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Timrollpickering. Country article is at Taiwan, categories and child articles should be named to match the country. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits› 22:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it appears we need a WP:RM of the article, not this CfD. Jeffrey you seem to be an advocate of article and category congruence so maybe you should propose that RM. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Comment The article spans across 1949. Further as I have stated above censorship is carried out by the state, therefore 'Republic of China' is more appropriate as the title for both the article and the category. Compare this with articles such as List of presidents of the Republic of China and Category:Presidents of the Republic of China, which also span across 1949 and are about the state. Jeffrey (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split pre-1949 material would get recategorized into the new title. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1949 is only an arbitrary border. From the electorate point of view the border can be as late as 1996 or 2000. There's no objective border for to split this country. Jeffrey (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have moved most RoC articles to "Taiwan". The cateogry only has two articles. Only one refers to the mainland, and that article merely has one short paragraph about wartime censorship by the mainland republic. It would be better to leave things as they are and move the paragraph in question to another article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I oppose splitting this sort of content at 1949 because we are dealing with the same political actor (the Kuomintang) engaging in censorship, albeit in different places, before and after that date.--Jiang (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1949 is when the country goes from countroling a good portion of the Mainland to controlling only some islands. It is a very logical border, it is when the claim to be the real China loses any semblance of reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose In general, I'm reluctant to move Taiwan cats to ROC when we're probably going to be moving cats the other way. However, the censorship was by the Government so naming it after the one doing the censoring rather than the province makes sense. Separating pre/post 1949 not a bad alternative though. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Procedurally this is a following up to WP:CFD#Republic of China & Taiwan. It's meant to match the title of the category with that of the article of the same topic, therefore it should be qualified for C2D1. It also reduces confusions, since this category might be mistaken as the category for the country. Some topics, such as Category:Taiwanese people, Proposed flags of Taiwan and History of Taiwan, are specific to the island of Taiwan (and the islets around it, such as the Pescadores, Green Island, Pengchia Island) and aren't really related to the rest of the Republic of China. Category:Taiwan should probably be kept as a categoryredirect. Jeffrey (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The category names should match the articles names. However don't create a redirect - the article Taiwan is about the country not the island and things added to Category:Taiwan are likely to be the same. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. There is no 'article of the same topic', 'Taiwan (island)' redirects to Geography of Taiwan. There aren't enough subcats and articles relating to the island of Taiwan that are distinct enough from the country of Taiwan to justify 'Category:Taiwan (island)'. All subcats on the country and its territory should be merged into Category:Taiwan, which is not dissimilar from the current content of the category anyway. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits› 22:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "There aren't enough subcats and articles relating to the island of Taiwan that are distinct enough from the country of Taiwan.." This is apparently not true. Anyone who's familiar with Taiwan and the country can tell. Jeffrey (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with Taiwan (the country and the island) and I disagree. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits› 23:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename but create the target and move selected items there. I think the proposed rename would put too many things there that are not inherently about the island.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Regardless of the article name, there should be separate categories for the two anyway, given that they haven't always been, and still in some senses are not, anonymous. I support keeping as a redirect too - I disagree that category names should necessarily mirror article names, given the former are subject to WP:Commonname Mayumashu (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CAT says topic categories should usually be named after their related article. There would need to be a reason why the two shouldn't match to justify an exception. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits› 05:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename The articles were merged. Jeffrey's continued attempts to justify his arguments by arguing that some islands aren't part of Taiwan is an old one dismissed in the move request of Republic of China --> Taiwan. CMD (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's yet to be any evidence that clearly defines those islands as part of Taiwan, apart from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR ones. Jeffrey (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of evidence, which can be found by anyone who knows how to use a search engine to do a search for the name of one of the islands along with Taiwan. CMD (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'apart from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR ones'. Jeffrey (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single source isn't SYNTH or OR, so I have no idea what you're trying to prove. CMD (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sure you've submitted any single source that unambiguously defines Kinmen as 'part of Taiwan'? Jeffrey (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It would be much better to merge Category:Republic of China, after purging it of anything referring to the mainland republic 1912-49. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many articles and categories are not separable, and 1949 is just another arbitrary point. There are other equally critical points in history. Jeffrey (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when did we decide to perge Category:Republic of China of pre-1949 items? This makes no sense at all, since the Republic of China and People's Republic of China exert power over different parts of the mainland for well over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Even after 1949 the ROC controlled quite many posts along the coast and in the southwest. Jeffrey (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Article now a Redirect What was then the "Taiwan" article was moved to Taiwan (island) which is the basis for this nomination. However, that name is now a redirect and the main article has been redirect to Geography of Taiwan. That main article already has a category, Category:Geography of Taiwan, with a much more narrow scope. Shall we revise this nomination as we chase the article through one rename after another?RevelationDirect (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it a must for every category to have a eponymous main article? Jeffrey (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my concern is the that stated purpose of the nomination is to match the consensus in the article space and that consenus has apparently evolved since the article is gone. Do you still want to proceed with the nomination?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a rename can be done to a subject that does not have a parent article. The fact is that we could create an article Taiwan (island) that ignored everwhere that was not on the same land mass as Taipei.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2012 (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:Terrestrial crocodiles and Category:Marine crocodiles[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename all. Most articles within these categories deal with non-crocodile crocodylomorphs (mostly extinct relatives of crocodiles that are not crocodiles themselves). When they were created, the categories were probably intended for crocodylomorphs in general. Smokeybjb (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - I support the proposal for the same reasons. Rnnsh (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This case isn't about common names, unless you wish to use those categories only for "crocodylids", since "Crocodiles" are the common names of the "crocodylids" (members of the family Crocodylidae). You wouldn't call even the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) crocodile, right? So why should Dyrosaurus page include that category (Category:Marine crocodiles) if Dyrosaurus isn't even a crocodylian, while Alligator is? Rnnsh (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Crocodile" refers to anything in the family Crocodylidae, "crocodilian" refers to anything in the order Crocodylia, and there's no common name for Crocodylomorpha, unfortunately. "Croc" is sometimes used as a general term for anything in Crocodylomorpha, but not in a formal way. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where does it say that category names are limited to "terms used in a formal way"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying the word "croc" isn't often used, but if you prefer that word to "crocodylomorph" (I don't see why you would, since it's meaning is obscure and it's not really a common name) I guess that would be fine. I'd still much rather have the categories changed to Terrestrial crocodylomorphs and Marine crocodylomorphs. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2012 (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 - jc37 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The term "Old Alleynian" is:
Obscure, because it does not incorporate any word from the common name of the school
Ambiguous, because it could refer to people associated with any of the institutions founded by Edward Alleyn (or split out from his original foundation Alleyn's College of God's Gift), including Alleyn's School. Anyone familiar with the "Old Fooian" format would assume (wrongly) that an "Old Alleynian" was a former pupil of Alleyn's School
The school name "Dulwich College" is very widely used in reliable sources: it has 1830 hits on Google News. However, the "Old Alleynian" term is much less widely used, with only 18 hits on Gnews for the singular form. There are 181 Gnews hits for the plural "Old Alleynians" form, but those hits overwhelmingly relate to the eponymous sports club, and we cannot assume that the non-specialist reader will be aware that the "Old Alleynians" sports club consists of the alumni of Dulwich College.
Some editors may point to the age of the school (founded in 1619) as evidence of the durability of the terminology, but according to a referenced section at Dulwich College#Old_Alleynians, the "Old Alleynian" terminology dates only from the 1880s, before which the term "Dulwichians" was used.
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categories, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here).
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It's impossible to guess the connection of those concepts.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for clarity per nom and recent CFDs. This is one of the worst as there's no real connection between the term and school name, and Alleyn was associated with multiple schools. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as an utterly obscure and ambiguous category name that can easily be changed to a simple, clear, consise, non-jargony, non-confusing, standardised and instantly understandable name, and, therefore, should be done so. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this ambiguous and obscure name ought to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- mainly because it is obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not it wouldn't be consistent (and why the obsession with being consistent with American categories anyway?). Alumni is a commonly used word. Old Alleynians is not an equivalent, it is internal jargon that is not decipherable to the average man on the Clapham omnibus. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the closest Americanism to Cjc's proposal would be Category:Sterling Heights High School former Stallions except we do not even do that. Arguably in many usages Category:Michigan Wolverines could refer to anyone who has been educated at the University of Michigan, not just people who played on the sports teams, the same of Category:BYU Cougars. However we currently only use these categories for people who were on inter-collegiate sports teams. This limited usage is actually a compelling reason to not use the old fooian form as a catchall for all people educated at the various schools in question. The fact that we can somehow do with obscure terms for English schools what we cannot even do for the most prestigious of all English universities is truly irregular. Why have we not Category:Oxonians?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess it is a redirect. However the primary usage for a person educated at the Univeristy of Oxford seems to be ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It matches the American usage in that it uses the form "Foo School XX". In the American categories XX is Alumni and in this case it would be Old Alleynians. As has been pointed out the school name is of importance to the reader, so why not start the category with the school name and put the actual terms used, such as Old Fooians or former pupils, after that. That would give a consistent form but allow for regional variations. Cjc13 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
adopting a format based on the American convention, rather than on the convention adopted by consensus in over 75 separate discussions for 97% of UK categories. Far from seeking a consistent form, you are breaking a consistent form.
replacing the plain English phrase "People educated at" with the inhouse jargon "old Alleynians". That makes it harder for the reader to figure out what the category is for, which impedes navigation.
It is a great pity that in all of these discussions you show no evidence of any concern for the general reader for whom Wikipedia is written. Your proposal creates a new and obscure naming format which is harder for both readers and editors to understand, all for the sole purpose of misusing the category titles to introduce inhouse terminology which is already explained inside the category and in the head article on the school. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say that it is inhouse terminology where it is used on public websites and other sources is plainly wrong. It is a great pity that BHG does not seem interested in an actual discussion based on sources. Cjc13 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The proposed name seems to contrary to WP:TITLECHANGES which states:
"While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
The proposed name does not reflect current usage. Cjc13 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name combines a descriptive phrase (per WP:NDESC) with the commonly-used named of the school. It is not in any respect a compromise between opposing points of view, any more than Category:People from Liverpool is a compromise between "Liverpudlians" and "Scousers".
Your reading of WP:TITLECHANGES is clearly a misreading, because if you were correct in thinking that it debarred descriptive titles, the section further up that page at WP:NDESC would never be applicable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC
Cjc13, how do your proposed compromise names reflect "current usage"? How is your proposal anything other than a case where you "invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view", in this case between those who thin it should be clear what educational institution a category name refers to and those who feel that a category name shold reflect some sort of "correct" and "proper" usage, no matter how unlike the educational institution in question it is and no matter how few people have ever heard the term or whether or not there are any reliable sources that tell us it is the proper term. How exactly are you proposals not a forbidden compromise?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, JPL is probably being a bit optimistic to expect a sensible reply. Cjc13's strategy in these discussions has been to chuck out any old argument based on any old out-of-context snippet from a policy, accompanied by bizarre assertions such as the assertion here that "People educated at" is jargon. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with including the name of the school in the title but it should be done in an appropriate way that reflects common usage. The proposed rename does not reflect common usage. Cjc13 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that if the current name is jargon then so is "people educated". There are sources for the current name but there are not sources for the use of "people educated" in relation to these categories. The current name is not used only inhouse but also publicly on websites. Cjc13 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to distinguish between a) jargon, which characteristic terminology of a small group; b) plain English, such as "people educated at". The latter is a phrase which requires no explanation to anyone with a basic command of English, and requires no prior knowledge of the school or its traditions.
It's a great pity that you still continue to repeat the irrelevant fact that a term is "used on websites". Wikipedia naming decisions are made on the basis of usage in reliable sources, and most websites do not fit those criteria.
Per WP:NDESC, a descriptive title may incorporate the sourced commonly-used terms, but there is no requirement for the descriptive title as a whole to be sourced. In fact WP:NDESC explicitly says that descriptive title may be inventede for use on Wikipedia, and even though that has been pointed out you dozens of times in these discussions you appear to have great difficulty in reading it.
However, just for your amusement, I tried checking the usage data on Google Books. The results are: 586 hits for "Old Alleynian(s)", but plain English phrase is 4 times more widely used. There are 2160 hits for "educated at Dulwich College". So why do you asserts that "proposed rename does not reflect common usage"? Did you make that claim knowing it to be false, or did you just make an assertion of fact without trying to check whether it was true? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and recent CFDs. Snappy (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and multiple recent CFDs. Oculi (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2012 (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: The main article for this category has already been merged (Health informatics, and the two terms are used interchangeably even within the article. Looking at the category members, there is no clear defining rule by which items are placed into either Category:Medical informatics or Category:Health informatics. suggest an upmerge to Category:Health informatics to align with the title of the main article. Karl.brown (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No clear distinction can be made. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I work in this area in RL and there is nothing that I can think of that would usefully distinguish the two terms. The preferred term in the industry is Health informatics. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2012 (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:No consensus to rename - jc37 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories are using a demonym which describes the whole of the country whose politics is being categorised. That is not the case here, because British refers to only part of the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that a vast majority of sources (including Wikipedia) consider 'British' to be the common demonym for all UK citizens: British people. While it is true that some in Northern Ireland do *not* identify as British, that is not a dominant view. But it's not quite fair to say that British only refers to part of the UK. Do a google news search for 'British politics' vs' 'UK Politics' or 'United Kingdom Politics' and you will see how frequently this is used. --Karl.brown (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a choice here between using either a) a neutral phrase, or b) one vociferously rejected by a minority. Why are you so keen to promote a majoritarian terminology instead of a neutral phrasing? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- British is the usual denonym for UK, even though questionable for Northern Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Britishness (or otherwise) of Northern Ireland is the central issue in the Politics of Northern Ireland. Regardless of the terminology used in Wikipedia wrt to other fields of human endeavour, it is spectacularly non-neutral for us to categorise the politics of the state with a hotly-disputed political term when a neutral alternative is available. Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it should not be set aside in favour of a local convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - while British might well be the WP:COMMONNAME for the UK as a whole ("English" would refer to only part of it), as pointed out here there is a neutrality concern, and as there is a non-obscure, nearly as commonly used, and clear alternative that is neutral, it makes sense to use it. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment - could someone please find a reference to show who is offended by this? And to show that the alternative phrasing, United Kingdom Politics, is "nearly as commonly used"? The ideal would be a Northern Irish Catholic newspaper that refers to United Kingdom politics instead of British politics in order to not offend their readers. On the other hand if a POV source still uses British politics, then I'm not sure whose feelings we are protecting here... there is a big difference between saying that the politics of the UK government is British politics and saying "everyone in Belfast is British". See here for one of the major journals covering the subject, called, um British Politics. If British is *really* that bad, then please take a look at all of the articles in the mainspace that start with British - are you proposing that the bulk of those also must be renamed? --Karl.brown (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any difference between Britishness and 'United Kingdom-ness' in Northern Irish politics? Jeffrey (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The parent article Politics of the United Kingdom has been thus named for many, many years, and has been stable at that name (it was created in October 2001, and has been edited by thousands of Users since then). It is thus named for a very good reason, which CFD ought to realise and respect. ("British politics" is a redirect to that main article, created as a separate stub article in 2002, and redirected to the main article in 2003.) In contrast, the "years in British politics" subcats are pretty much brand spanking new, are the work of one User, and have zero community consensus. Users ought to realise that labelling anything "British" when actually meaning to designate the whole UK is controversial, and ought to be thoroughly avoided in our categorisation trees. UK and United Kingdom are perfectly good adjectives, and ought to be the only adjectives used when describing anything of or from the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment "and ought to be thoroughly avoided in our categorisation trees" Hold the horses please! Please take a look at this search: British categories. You will see no less than 17,427 categories in Wikipedia which contain this terribly controversial word 'British', and I bet a big chunk of them refer to the whole UK. Are the armies of offended people beating down the wiki-door because of that? Now you might say 'oh that's all British Columbia and British Airways etc' but it's not. So please stop trotting out this 'British politics is offensive' trope... There are more categories containing the word 'British' than there are 'United Kingdom' categories! BrownEyedgirl asked "Why are you so keen to promote a majoritarian terminology instead of a neutral phrasing?" - the reason is, this is what it is called, and not majority in terms of 51%, but majority in terms of 20 to 1, even 140 to 1, 1000 to 1 in the sources. No-one has shown any evidence that the term 'British politics' is offensive, and more importantly, it hasn't been shown that POV sources in Northern Ireland use a different term. If I had the gumption I would actually propose that the article 'United Kingdom politics' be renamed to 'British politics' because that is the common way it is described. Go to that article Politics of the United Kingdom and see how many times the phrase "United Kingdom politics" or "Politics of the United Kingdom" appears... wait, it never does - whereas 'British politics' appears 3 times in the body, and twice in the references - so even the neutral article edited by thousands can't escape it! A simple google search will show you how frequently 'British politics' is used against any other descriptor (710k books and 49k scholarly articles use the "controversial" British politics vs 5k books and 293 articles that use the "neutral" United Kingdom Politics - even ~5x more wikipedia articles use British politics instead of the more wordy United Kingdom politics). For more evidence, take a look at this cat: Category:Politicians_from_Northern_Ireland, which is contained within this one Category:British_politicians_by_nationality. Any cursory browse through the UK trees will show a top-level cat that starts with 'United Kingdom W', then a sub-cat which is 'British X', then a sub-cat which is 'Y of the United Kingdom', followed by a subcat which is 'British Zs'. This stuff is hopelessly intertwined, and I for one would not suggest trying to normalize it, it would be a big and very messy job. Again, I ask that we differentiate between the term British when applied as an imposed ethnicity to nationalists in Northern Ireland (who may reject it and find it offensive), and British as applied as an adjective to describe the political machinations of the UK. I'd love those who support this rename to demonstrate, using outside sources, that the term British politics (and not just the word 'British') is offensive. Otherwise, let's debate this rename on other merits.--KarlB (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Your rhetoric of "British politics" being preferred over "United Kingdom politics" by "1000 to 1 in the sources" is hyperbole, not borne out by the figures which you yourself provide later on. The term "British politics" predominates within the UK precisely because it accurately refers to the politics of the island of Great Britain, which dominates the UK both by landmass and by population. The major political parties which dominate the politics of Great Britain do not field candidates in Northern Ireland (with the brief exception of the Conservatives' unsuccessful foray), and the political parties in Northern Ireland do not field candidates in Great Britain. As a result, most of the literature on "British politics"! describes the politics of Great Britain rather than of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... and in that context the term "British" is accurate. However, this category's scope is not restricted to Great Britain, and its title should describe its actual scope in neutral terms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply I struck out the 1000 to 1, sorry I had miscalculated a search result. As for Northern Irish not fielding candidates in Great Britain, what do you make of this: [1]? Or this (when describing a Northern Irish member of British parliament): "Even on his sick-bed he remains the most charismatic figure in Northern Irish, if not British politics as a whole." [2]. Isn't it significant that the most important body in British politics, the Parliament, has representatives from Northern Ireland? I will ask, again, that you please provide a reference, any reference, that defends your points, namely that "British politics predominates within the UK precisely because it accurately refers to the politics of the island of Great Britain" and "most of the literature on "British politics"! describes the politics of Great Britain rather than of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" I just did a google scholar search on "Parliament" and "British politics" and got 19k hits - so clearly some scholars think 'British politics' refers to Parliament, which is not a body that governs Great Britain, but rather a body which governs the UK. --KarlB (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not only an NI / GB issue. In Scotland, "British politics" means "Westminster politics". Scottish politics is very much part of the Politics of the United Kingdom, but it has very little to do with Westminster politics these days. The whole issue here is inclusiveness. "British" is an (intentionally) provocative, divisive and inherently POV term to apply to something meant to embrace the entire UK, and not simply the British nationalist bits of it. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm sorry if I sound a bit thick, but isn't Westminster where parliament sits? And isn't Parliament the sovereign body over the United Kingdom? --> "Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law." [3]? How does that make it 'nationalist'? If you're arguing there should be a category for Category:Politics of Scotland well, such a category exists already. But so does the United Kingdom...--KarlB (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people within the United Kingdom (such as Scottish and Irish nationalists) would prefer that it didn't exist, but I don't see any disagreement about the fact that at the moment, the UK does exist. What is contested is the assumption that those within the UK hold a British identity, or regard the term British as an inclusive label. That notion rejected by a significant proportion of Scots and Northern Irish people. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If Britishness is a problem in Northern Irish politics, the same problem exist for its UK-ness. The word British is demonym of the UK, not of Great Britain. Jeffrey (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most people use "British" as a denonym for the UK because "The British Isles" in the minds of many people means Great Britain, Ireland, and those other small islands that are somewhere around there. At least that is how I use the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "British" is the demonym for the whole UK and the fact that some people don't like doesn't make it non-neutral. The fact that the main article is called Politics of the United Kingdom is also irrelevant - the standard pattern is to have a main article entitled "Politics of Fooland" and then categories entitled "Years if Fooian politics" (see Politics of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Years in Irish politics). Number57 14:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am fascinated by your comment that "The fact that some people don't like doesn't make it non-neutral". That's a radically new definition of "non-neutral".
The Northern Irish minority finds it to be a mislabelling, and the Scottish minority find use it to refer to Westminster politics ( as opposed to internal Scottish politics). But all that is irrelevant because a majority uses it without question?
If something is factually correct, it is by default neutral, regardless of how some people may view it. As an example, recently I have had to deal with an editor pushing a POV that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not exist, because (judging from their edit history) they do not like it. Nevertheless, it remains a neutral observation that the TNRC does indeed exist. This is the same; British remains the demonym for the whole UK despite the fact that some people don't like it, and these categories are typically named using the demonym. Number57 20:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Factually correct" is an interesting concept when describing language. The fact here is surely that "British" is an adjective derived from the word "Britain", an island which covers most but not all of the United Kingdom.
Widespread usage does of itself convey neutrality, and the neutrality of this term is strongly contested in Northern Ireland. Proclaiming it as neutral because the majority likes it is little different from saying that terms like cripple, spastic, pood=f and redneck are to be regarded as neutral if we can demonstrate majority usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem quite sure of this, so I'm sure you have evidence to back it up. Can you show us a reference, any reference, anywhere, from anyone, that says effectively 'The phrase 'British politics', when used to describe politics of the United Kingdom, offends me'. Not the word 'British' as an ethnic identity, but the term 'British politics'? And please recall, there are 17,000 categories in wikipedia containing the word British, so if you're starting a crusade against this word in general, best of luck! :) --KarlB (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've read that page before. I'll repeat my request from above - can you find a reference that suggests that the phrase "British politics', when used to describe politics of the United Kingdom, offends X"? There is a big difference between British as an ethnic label/identity, and British as an adjective. It's the 3rd time I've asked, and no references have surfaced. --KarlB (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not playing the ever-more-specific-reference game. You have plenty of references there to the fact that the key political issue in Northern Ireland is over whether people accept the notion of Britishness. If you still think that it is neutral to encompass that under the contested label of "British politics", then I'd be wasting my time looking for more specific sources when your mind is clearly made up. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a cop out. This is not a game, and my mind is not made up. That is why I'm asking for specific references, which I'm betting you weren't able to find. My mind was certainly influenced, by looking at reputable sources, like the London School of Economics, which has a program in British Politics; the Economist, which has a topical section called British politics, by the google searches I referenced above, which show this to be the preferred term by 100 to 1 in some sources, and by some NY Times searches I just did this morning Politics of the United Kingdom, 3 hits since 1851, British politics, 3470 hits since 1851. Where are the outraged letters by Irish people, asking NY Times and the Economist to stop using this hated term British politics? What exactly is your procedural basis for arguing that this is a POV term? Also you may want to consider nominating these two next:British_passport, Category:British diplomats - I mean, those are offensive, right? --KarlB (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "British" is by far the most common demonym (it's even the demonym listed in the infobox of United Kingdom and has been for years). Pichpich (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to stick with a demonym? WP:NPOV is a core policy, and surely that overrides a naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose No-one has unearthed any sources that suggest the term 'British politics', when used to describe the politics of the United Kingdom, is offensive, inaccurate, uncommon, or imprecise. The nominator suggests that British applies only to the island of Great Britain, an assertion which is not supported by evidence or common usage. There is has been no evidence provided that 'British politics' means only 'English politics' or 'England and Wales politics' or 'England and Wales and Scotland' politics, and in fact there is ample evidence to suggest that British politics includes the activities of Parliament, the body which governs the whole of the UK. The common understanding of this term by everyone is synonymous with politics of the United Kingdom as a whole. Finally, the nominator has confused the use of the term British as an ethnic identity, which is not embraced by some, and British as an adjective to describe the machinations of a state.--KarlB (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Weakley County[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 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: This trait is WAY too subjective to be governed by a category. Video games as art is already controversial so every member of this category would REQUIRE a reference to it being called art. It also seems to be misapplied at times. I'm no video game critic, but I think it's safe to say Angry Birds Rio is NOT an art game. I would have suggested listifying but a nice list already exists at art game. I'm sure there's a guideline about this somewhere... Found it: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no clear defining criteria, and that is one of the inherent requirements for all categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2012 (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.
