Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 11 August 13 >

August 12[edit]

Category:Second-language acquisition[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 to Category:Second language acquisition. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proposed name is more common; the current name is almost never used. Further details at Talk:Second language acquisition#Hyphen. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Regardless of where the article should be, a category should have the same title as its parent article, if possible. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify: I did just move the article myself right before I proposed this category rename. I'm not sure if the article move will stick; I left a message about it at the article's talk page, and if it becomes contentious the article may end up getting moved back. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The move of that article has been undone and it's going to be discussed a bit; can we put this on hold until that is resolved? Sorry for jumping the gun. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Does "second-language" imply just the second language, or should this perhaps be "secondary-language" implying all languages that are not the primary? --Lquilter (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of the field is "second language acquisition" (no hyphen). "Secondary-language acquisition" would be a neologism.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename you can have multiple second languages. That is because to aquire something as a third language is to have even less skill in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 27 August 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:Spacesuits[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: Don't rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. I was surprised to find the article for this category was at Space suit instead of Spacesuit, and indeed has, as far as I can tell, been at the spaced (pardon the pun) name since its creation in 2002(!). However the objection was that the article should be at the unspaced name. So to space or not to space, that is the question... The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match main article Space suits and all other space technology articles except space vehicles. Hmains (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It seems better to me to have the article at spacesuit, but categories should always match their parent articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the reverse rename the article instead, to spacesuit -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname article -- The compound word is much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse, rename article instead. There was a very brief discussion at the article talk page in 2005. It's not likely to be opposed and is not worth raising a WP:RM; just do it. – Fayenatic London 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now; while the article and category should be brought in line, a discussion on the correct title for the article should be held first, and my preference would be to rename the article. --W. D. Graham 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above, I withdraw and agree that the article should be renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:05, 27 August 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:Tiangong[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) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedies per WP:ENGVAR. It was suggested by the objector that "programme" would be appropriate here as China includes Hong Kong, however it seems to me that that would only apply to articles about HK itself - and is debatable anyway. (Note also it has been suggested that "program" be adopted for all non-British space topics.)
Copy of speedy nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to 'program' to match their parent category Category:Chinese space program and its same named main article Chinese space program Hmains (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've queried WPHK and WPCHINA on the matter -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I don't mind which way this goes as long as the program/me is consistent within a country. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. as Category:Tiangong will be better described as a space programme. Category:Shenzhou programme should be renamed to Category:Shenzhou program, as China does not follow Hong Kong's English conventions and American English conventions are usually used. --Wylve (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 27 August 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:Telecommunications term stubs[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This stub tag was created based on Category:Telecommunications terms, which is now proposed for deletion deleted. This stub type is no longer needed, for all the reasons discussed in the proposal to delete the parent category. Both the category and the stub template should be deleted--Srleffler (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to "telecommunications stubs"; only used on 9 articles now, and it would not be desirable to use it more widely as discussed here. – Fayenatic London 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per linked discussion, replace template with {{telecomm-stub}} or one of its more appropriate children for all 9 remaining --Qetuth (talk) 05:39, 15 August 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:Establishments by country and decade[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: split per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. The decades part of the Establishments by location and time hierarchy is a bit unwieldy at this level since the many categories of the type XXXXs establishments by country‎ and the several hundred ones of the type Establishments in xxxxxxx by decade‎ all go into the same, this, container category. As the original creator of this whole scheme I missed identifying this problem emerging caused by differences in the "by decades" hierarchy compared to the "by years" one. The latter uses Category:Establishments by country as the container for all the by country categories, which means that either particular provisions need be taken for the decades, centuries and millennia correspondents or we risk ending up with the situation that I am currently attempting to fix. Since there are far fewer centuries and millennia than there are decades, I think making the split which I now propose should be sufficient, and I don't see any need to make changes to those other two structures in connection with the current process. __meco (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see also further comments below. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Upmerge to the by century categories. Decades add an unnecessary level of navigation. It is easier to navigate by centuries rather then decades. The big difference is that you have 100 subcategories per page rather then 10 per page. Since the decade years are together navigation is not difficult! This has been done in limited cases without and outcry that it did not work, so why not do that here? This also has the advantage of reducing, but not eliminating, the very small categories Peterkingiron is concerned with. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad idea: many of these decade categories are fine in their current state, and they improve navigation. Let's leave the matter of which ones are too small for a different CFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We certainly have too many levels. A page can hold some 200 items. I have in the past advocated merging annual categories into decades. However, I would be happy to eliminate the decades and keep the years: all 100 years will go on one page. This will also deal with my issue as to mixing three and four digit years, rendering my suggested "first millenium" category unnecessary. Implementing this will involve an enormous mass nomination. Is some one willing to follow this up? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this happens, do we need a full discussion on all of them or can we do a few and speedy the rest? Once the first few are set up, the rest become copy and pastes which takes time. I would be willing to assist on the work. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 13 August 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:Songs about the Cold War[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: listify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information amongst other guidelines. I have checked a number of the articles, making comments at User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme which shows of the 12 members I checked only one of them might actually be about the Cold War
At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech, Euphemism and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics. Comparing love to a cold war is not a song about THE Cold War!
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels. Richhoncho (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted too late, this category has been deleted before Discussion November 3, 2008. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A little cleanup leaves articles that are about Cold War themes: Berlin and its wall, nuclear war/destruction, east-west conflict, etc. This category is an obvious part of its parents: Category:Works about the Cold War and Category:Songs by war which do not need to have these songs placed directly into them. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I assume you removed 13 entries. I also note that there are still a number of entries I have read that are most definitely not "about the cold war." It is impossible to maintain categories like this without ignoring one of the main WP policies, - WP:NPOV. Some songs/song articles mentioned, some were set in, some used as motif, but none were actually about the cold war. The Berlin Wall might be a product of the cold war, but it is not the cold war and a love story set against a backdrop of the Berlin Wall has no business being in this category. Although grouped with the "Songs by war" this category does not belong in the category as it is presently titled. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, the Cold War was all about frames of mind and so its impact was cultural as illustrated by these songs. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the Cold War had a social and cultural impact on songs that should be reflected at WP. I just don't think that categories is the way to do it. A scholarly list with explanations rather than a quick HotCat is the way to go. For what it's worth I too have been going through every article in the category and making a couple of notes. Perhaps this will illustrate why song categories by theme do not work, including this one. Furthermore I doubt you and I will agree which of the ones below should be removed - further evidence that categories do not work when metaphors do!
  • I agree that the Cold War was about states of mind ... but I think that's why it's actually difficult to categorize things related to it; especially things as fairly short and often oblique as songs. --Lquilter (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Song Title From article My comments
I Was Only Nineteen account of a typical Australian infantry regular soldier's experience in the Vietnam War Vietnam was a “hot” war!
Nikita (song) describes his crush on a beautiful GDR border guard whom he cannot meet because he is not allowed into the country This is a “love song” set against a “border”
Heroes (David Bowie song) ...the image of the lovers kissing "by the wall” As Nikita, it’s a love song.
Crazy Train main theme of the song is criticism of Cold War Criticism of something is not the same as “about”
Back in the U.S.S.R. refers to a "dreadful" flight back to the U.S.S.R. from Miami Beach in the United States, on board a B.O.A.C. aeroplane. How is this about the cold war?
A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall Dylan had written the song more than a month before the crisis broke. However, the song has remained relevant through the years as it has a broader sweep; the dense imagery suggests injustice, suffering, pollution and warfare The line “I met a white man who walked a black dog” should confirm it is not “about” the Cold War”
One Night in Bangkok lyrics sarcastically juxtapose the Thai capital city and its nightlife with the game of chess. I know the musical was about a Russian defector who plays chess, but this song is not about the Cold War.
Ronnie – Talk To Russia! "Featuring Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev" is written on the cover. There’s enough here to suggest it might be cold war-related, but then again it might not!
London Calling (song) Lyrics mention nuclear accidents, police, flooding and the article says “The lyrics also reflect desperation of the band's situation in 1979 struggling with high debt” About every except the cold war.
Weeping Wall (instrumental) The track has been described by Bowie as intending to evoke the misery of the Berlin Wall, Song –v- instrumental conundrum, too!
Balls to the Wall (song) Asked about the meaning of the song, guitarist Wolf Hoffmann replied :"We've always been interested in politics and in human rights and things like that, so a lot of the lyrics that we had in those days, and to the end actually, were dealing with human rights, for instance, and that's really what "Balls To The Wall" is all about. "One day the tortured will stand up and kick some ass!" So Human rights is now something to do with the cold war
The Final Countdown (song) The song's lyrics were inspired by David Bowie's song "Space Oddity" Yes, space travel gets included.
2 Minutes to Midnight The song has references to the Doomsday Clock, the symbolic clock used by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In September 1953 the clock reached 23:58, the closest the clock ever got to midnight. This occurred when the United States and Soviet Union tested H-bombs within nine months of one another. This is "about the Cold War?" Tenuous to say the least.
99 Luftballons The English (but not the German) version tells about two children who buy 99 balloons at a toy shop and release them into the air, where faulty radar equipment is unable to identify the balloons. The German version starts with the narrator stating he will tell of a story about 99 balloons. Both versions then continue much in the same way with the government immediately put their troops on red alert and scrambles fighter jets to intercept the balloons, which ultimately triggers a nuclear war. Only by "interpretation" can this be considered to be about the cold war, it is also included in Category:Songs about the military AND Category:Anti-war songs.
Bonzo Goes to Bitburg The song was written in reaction to the visit paid by U.S. president Ronald Reagan to a military cemetery in Bitburg, West Germany, on May 5, 1985. Whoever added this to the category needs a history lesson.
Breathing (song) "Breathing" is about a foetus, very much aware of what is going on outside the womb and frightened by nuclear fallout, which implies that the song is set either during a nuclear war scare or a post-apocalyptic birth. The lyrics also refer to the foetus absorbing nicotine from the mother's smoking. Nuclear fall out does not equal cold war.
Bullet the Blue Sky The song was originally written about the United States' military intervention during the 1980s in the El Salvador Civil War. Somebody has connected El Salvador with the Cold War? Original research?
Burning Heart (song) The East versus West conflict is reflected by the fight in the boxing ring between Rocky and Ivan Drago Cold War as Metaphor for boxing, or boxing as Metaphor for Cold War? Lyrics don't mention boxing or cold war so it really is interpretation or Original research as we call it at WP.

--Richhoncho (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Listify / Article-ify - Given the reach & breadth of Cold War-related conflicts -- almost all latter-20th century conflicts could be tied in some way to the Cold War -- it could sweep in almost all songs about war or nuclear peril from that period of time. Some times the songs would be about specific conflicts and thus only obliquely about the "Cold War". Rarely would songs directly be about the "cold war" -- as demonstrated by Richhoncho's list. (Thanks Richhoncho!) I think categories are not the right way to do this, although I think it's an interesting topic. Instead I would do "Cold War in popular culture" as an article and possibly associated lists, basically a spin-off from Cold War. --Lquilter (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/etc. per User:Lquilter. While I do disagree with many of the "assessments" in the chart above, I do think that we're starting to see a trend of "songs about X" cats justifiably being listified. Maybe Category:Songs by theme needs a group nom? - jc37 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JC37, This is one time when I am pleased somebody disagrees with my assessments - it proves these categories don't work. It is still hit and miss whether a song by theme cat gets deleted hence one at a time at present. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been back on CFD long enough to see the trend. But let's go slow on deleting the whole songs-by-FOO category tree. I agree that in general "songs about FOO" is one of those criteria where "about" and the FOO subject themselves are both so relative that its not a good use of the category function. I also note that since WP:NSONG discourages articles about many individual songs, then a lot of otherwise notable songs that might fit in any of those subcategories wouldn't be included -- another example of how the category function isn't the best way to handle this issue.
    But, some of the things grouped within "Songs by theme" are perhaps not actually "themes" -- e.g., "category:trade union songs", which has some songs about unions and other songs more by association ("The Preacher and the Slave"). And then there are songs-about categories that are arguably genres (category:holiday songs; category:wedding songs; category:religious songs). And a lot of songs-about categories are actually fairly simple to implement (Category:Songs about automobiles and Category:Vehicle wreck ballads). I guess I'm not sure. --Lquilter (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken and I know I wouldn't nominate the Trade Union songs for deletion, because an entry in that category is clearly definable, unlike "songs about..."--Richhoncho (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify, as this will make it a lot more manageable and useful. I would be inclined to keep some of the entries criticised above, in a list where they could be given context, e.g. a section for love songs set against Cold War borders. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the El Salvador connection to the Cold War is not OR, but US intervention in Latin America being moved by fear of repeats of Cuba and Nicaragua needs to be explained. The Cold War is a nebulous enough term that a list seems to be needed to explain all connections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 27 August 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:Ulama-e-Deoband[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 to Category:Deobandi ulama.
There was a clear consensus to rename away from the current for, but not a clear consensus on which of the two alternative names to prefer. However, it seems to me that the claim about "Deobandi ulama" being a widely-used term follows the naming policy of WP:COMMONAME, and that the arguments in favour of "Deobandi scholars" are not so well-founded in policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Title should be in English. Axiom292 (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ulama-e-Deoband: Should remain unchanged. Those who represent Deobandi movement are traditionally known as Ulama-e-Deoband. And it is a widely used term.--Abu Bakr (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a widely used term in English sources? Searching Google books for "Deobandi ulama" shows that "Deobandi ulama" is often used to describe ulama that follow the Deobandi school. Searching "Ulama-e-Deoband" gives no English results. Axiom292 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translate and provide category with a head note to explain what it is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Translating "ulama" would probably result in "Muslim scholars of Islam". Currently most ulama are categorized under Category:Muslim scholars of Islam. However, that category contains some Muslims that are scholars of Islam, yet not ulama. So I think that a Category:Ulama should be created as a subcategory of Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, and different types of ulama would fit there, named appropriately, such as "Deobandi ulama". Axiom292 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, categories normally use English language rather than local languages, except where the foreign-language terms are widely known and used in English media. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Deobani and ulama are both acceptable terms in an English-language encyclopedia. However they should be combined in a way that uses English rules of combination, not according to Urdu word combination procedures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Deobandi adherents or Category:Deobandi scholars to explain what Deobandis are. My understanding is that the movement started as an Indian reaction to (syncretic) folk Islam and may have been encouraged by the British, as a means of removing influence on Indian affairs from older Islamic scholastic centres that were result in political influence from abroad. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Deobandi scholars would work in my view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 10 September 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:Islamic clergy[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 to Category:Islamic religious leaders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no such thing as Islamic clergy. Axiom292 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that a cleric is a clergyman; the former is essentially a rarer synonym of the latter. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. What I was trying to say was that Category:Sunni clerics should also be deleted, because its contents could be re-categorized in a more meaningful place. What is an Islamic cleric anyway? Axiom292 (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Islamic religious leaders. The sub-cats by century can then be speedily renamed to match. We can follow this up with the clergy categories for at least some other religions; if it works for them all, then the clergy-by-nationality categories and Category:Clergy can all be upmerged to Religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 13 August 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:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Signatories of declarations of independence, and all three of its other subcategories (Albania, Israel, and the Republic of Ireland) use "Signatories of _____". Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this! I think that's how English is supposed to work, so yay! :) jengod (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support per nom. Couldn't this have been speedied? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • reverse rename of the parent and other categories There's no particularly good reason to prefer "signatories" over "signers", and indeed the former word is more commonly used of nations ascribing to agreements and treaties. The use of "signers" for the US declaration has at least a century of precedent if not two. Also, the higher level of Category:Signatories by document contains a mixture of "signer" and "signatory" categories. I would propose the following instead:
I've left Category:English subscribers to the Solemn League and Covenant 1643 out of this since I'm not persuaded that it's a category of signers in the sense we normally think of that. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed several links, changing them from "Category signers" to "Category:signers". Please note that the parent and the Irish were recently created for the first time; they've not been renamed from anything else. You're right to leave out the SL&C subscribers; in this context, "subscription" means that you publicly state your agreement with the SL&C and your belief in the principles behind it, rather than simply putting your name on the physical document. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that being said, I support Mangoe's revised proposal. I don't see a good reason to prefer either "signers" or "signatories", so we simply should go with the one that's already used more commonly, and he provides clear evidence that "signers" is actually more common. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do too - except the two charter ones, per my comments below. - jc37 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per nomination. Far more convoluted than I originally thought. Looking at ADofI only they are referred to as signatures to in most of the places I looked, "signers" has other meanings and therefore open to interpretation. The word signatory/ies wasn't used until 1866, but I prefer it because it is more specific in today's idiom. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The usual noun is "signatories". "Signers" is probably not a neologism, but is a mere noun form of the verb. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) (originally added to wrong section).[reply]
  • "Signer", if you believe the old OED, has the older provenance by a least a century and a half ("signatory" shows an older usage, but for an entirely different sense). It is hardly a neologism. The US government prefers "signers" (e.g. here). Searching for "signatories" tends to produce results for treaties, referring to countries as subscribing to them; also the preferred usage seems to be "signatory to" by a considerable margin. Mangoe (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep William Hooper was a signer. Through him, the Province of North Carolina was a signatory.- choster (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the common name rule. This is what they are always called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A person signs their signature. They therefore leave a signature, rather than just a sign (with its multiple meanings), thus making them a signatory. A signer could refer to a billboard painter, somebody using sign language etc. Better to use a more accurate description, and certainly though it may be in use in American English, signer is not a term used in British or Commonwealth English that I am aware of, so therefore instances such as the Declaration of Arbroath, , or the Proclamation of the Irish Republic et al. should certainly not be changed. Brendandh (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps then the American category should keep its proper American name? Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preference for signatories which seems to be the prevalent usage in existing categories. Tim! (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Mangoe said what I was going to: signatories are parties signing to indicate that they will abide by (and/or act upon) the terms of the document (like a treaty). One signs a declaration. (Also noting that while a signatory may be a signer, a signer is not necessarily a signatory. A signatory is typically a representative of some sort.) - jc37 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renamings from "signatories", as "signatories" is the contemporary term. If "signer" is archaic, then rename all signers to signatories; however, if signer is still in use in American English, then leave it alone. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Signers" is perfectly contemporary usage here. As I think at least one person above remarked, "signatories" would be reserved for the parties bound by the document: the signatories to the Declaration would therefore include Maryland and Virginia, not Samuel Chase and Thomas Jefferson. Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the signatories to the Declaration would therefore include Maryland and Virginia, not Samuel Chase and Thomas Jefferson." - Exactly. - jc37 12:58, 27 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_12&oldid=1138395956"