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.
Oppose at this point since the category does not included any people before the islands became a state. Clearly we have many articles on the royalty from the islands. Now one could ask if we need to keep this as a parent for the proposed rename and then populate it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Royalty of Hawaii would be in Category:Native Hawaiian people. This category is for people who are only Native Hawaiian by ancestry, not people who are ethnically Native Hawaiian. In fact most of the people in this category have at least three other identified descents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the point that residents of Hawaii become American is not when Hawaii becomes a state in 1959, but when the United States annexes Hawaii in 1898. Do we have Category:Kingdom of Hawaii people or something like this? I think we should.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose instead subcategorize with "American" if we really need that. Since Native Hawaiians is an ethnic categorization, we should have a more generalized category, instead of not having one when we need to categorize someone. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I guess there is reason to have a non-country specific parent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]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 it makes no sense to create by descent sub-cats until we have a by nationality parent. This is a case of building a tree to quicky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment the parent category involved is Category:Businesspeople in brewing and its parents are all 'businesspeople' so why should these subcategories be any different and confusing. We are not here to just change category names to this or that in willie-nillie fashion without reference to what is already established. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename/merge both per nom. One can make an argument that the CFO of a brewing conglomerate is in no sense a brewer, but in this corporate world everyone gets tagged with the label of the company's products. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I now agree what 'brewer' is the best name in this case. Hmains (talk) 16:49, 3 November 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:keep. From outside the UK, this is a baffling discussion, since the original and target categories look like they mean the same thing. But a look at the articles shows that Welsh Government most assuredly does not equal Government of Wales, and similarly for Scotland. For those unfamiliar with the Welsh Government and Scottish Government, it might be nice to include "(executive branch)" after those two category names. Just a thought.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the succinct but compelling rationale of the closing editor for the similar category Category:Government of Ireland in the CFD of Sept 10. If it's good enough for Ireland, then it's good enough for Wales and Scotland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are either recreations of a previously deleted category after losing a CFD? Oppose per WP:Pointy. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "The main article for this category is Scottish Government", which is distinct from the more general Government of Scotland and both are well populated. I can't see any obvious rationale for merging them in the linked Irish discussion. I know less about Wales but the situation there would appear to be similar to Scotland. BenMacDui 09:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To assist Ben MacDui, I've pasted the rationale provided by the nominator for the Irish precedent. "This terminology is not used in Irish govt or politics. In the constitution and in common usage, Ireland has "the government", and it has local government. There is no broader "central government" category in Wikipedia, so this isn't even a matter of trying to squeeze Irish realities into existing wiki-conventions." Just substiture Scottish for Irish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't pretend to an extensive knowledge of Irish affairs, but "Scottish Government" is the common term in Scotland, often abbreviated to "ScoGov" or simply "SG" when referring to the subject as compared to "Westminster", "London" or other shorthand for "Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". By contrast, "Government of Scotland" is a concept, not a single entity and the two are quite distinct. I don't know what "point" Benkenobi18 is referring to but please do take a look at a relevant website and consider withdrawing this patently absurd nomination. BenMacDui 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query In what way is Scottish Government distinct from Government of Scotland? If it is distinct, is that distinction worth preserving in the categorisation? In the Irish precendent, the decision was either that there was no distinction or, if a distinction existed, that it was not worth preserving. The deciding rationale was unclear on this point. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Scotland article is very weak and perhaps confusing. Nevertheless, and forgive me if I am wrong about this, but isn't it normal practice for a nominator to have a basic understanding of the subject matter? As ought to be clear from the categories concerned the "Scottish Government" is currently formed by the Scottish National Party and is responsible to the Scottish Parliament. The "Government of Scotland" includes the Scottish Government as well as UK and reserved functions including and especially those exercised by the Scotland Office, whose ministers are currently appointed by the UK coalition government. The distinction is fundamental to an understanding of the Scottish political process. BenMacDui 12:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgiven. To translate your contribution above into an Irish equivalent, you are saying that the Irish Government (the executive branch) is currently formed by the Fine Gael party and is responsibel to the Oireachtas. The "Government of Ireland" includes the Irish Government and other funbctions (e.g. Judiciary). Would you agree? If so, then the Scottish case is comparable to the Irish case. If not, then why not? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree and you have failed to understand the difference. I am not sure what more I can offer to make this plain - do you not yet understand that the Scottish Government is a devolved institution in a way that has no parallel in Ireland? Please do read my above replies more closely as they provide the answer to your last question. BenMacDui 14:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not credible that the Westminster connection is the sole reason for the need for 2 Scottish categories. If that was the case, then it it ought to be impossible for non-Westminster sub-categoies and articles to reside in the cat "Government of Scotland". Yet you have things like Category:Council areas of Scotland, Burgh of barony and Richard Cockburn of Clerkington. Go figure. If things like that can exist in it, then the entirety of the Scottinh Governmnet can also snugly sit there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@LL: this is quite simple. Scotland and Wales are currently non-sovereign countries which have each two distinct layers of central government. That is not the situation in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The devolution argument does not add up. If that was true, then every other devolved form of govt would have 2 categories. But this is not the case . Take Australia where would have a federal government (like Westminster) and state governments (like Scotland). However, there is only one category for Category:Government of Western Australia. It does not have a seperate category for the "Western Australian Government". If it's good enough for Australia, it's good enough for Scotland and Wales. Laurel Lodged (talk)
We are not discussing Western Australia here. It may be the case that Australian states such as WA should have similar categories for their state governments; or maybe not. That belongs in a separate discussion, which considers the constitutional structures in Australia and the extent of coverage needing to be categorised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nominator's rationale is blatant nonsense. For a start, the category being cited as a precedent was Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland, and it was deleted because that terminology is not used in Ireland. These is not "central govt" categories; they are precisely named categories relating to the devolved administrations, whose role is a subset of the wider government of those countries. Ben MacDui's comment above summarises the situation very neatly. If the nominator was aware of the existence of the Scottish Government, then this article was straightforward WP:POINTy disruption, and the nom should be censured. OTOH, if the nominator was not aware of the existence of the Scottish Government, then he will now withdraw this nomination ... if he is acting in good faith. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query In what way is "Central government of the Republic of Ireland" essentially different from Scottish Government (apart from nuances of nonenclature)? What does the one contain that the other does not contain? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my above replies. BenMacDui 14:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your replies above; they do not address the specifics of this question. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Government of Scotland and Scottish Government are two very different things. Clearly the SG (note: a proper noun) is part of the government of Scotland, but it is very, very far from being the only component. Other obvious elements are: a) local govt, b) the European Union, c) the UK Govt, d) the judiciary. The proposer either doesn't have a scoobie about the topic in hand, or is acting in bad faith. Either way, it doesn't look good. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposer has a scoobie. The proposer also provided a link to the precendent-setting decision of SEPT 10th. If Mais oui has a glance there, he will see that the "only component / Other obvious elements" argument was defeated. Logic demands that the same must happen here in the case of Wales and Scotland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mais Oui is right. Either the proposer was ignorant of the easily-learnt basics of the topic, or the proposer was unaware that there is a specific entity called the Scottish Government, in which cases this was WP:POINTYy disruption. (Please note that in the discussion linked to in the nomination, there is no entity known either officially or in common usage as the "Central government of the Republic of Ireland". By LL's logic, we should delete Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States on the grounds that there is no Category:Aircraft carriers of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- These are quite different things, Wales and Scotland are subject to UK government; a devolved Parliament/Assembly and Local Government (in Wales through councils for "Principal Areas"). I can see the source of the ambiguity. We might resolve this by renameing the target to Category:Government in Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snap! I had been thinking earlier today about that switch from "of" to "in". This strikes me as being a very good idea for non-sovereign entities of all sorts, where the "Government of Foo/Fooish Government" is not the only entity with governing powers in the area. It would also be nice to have an uncapitalised Category:government in Foo eto emphasise that we are not referring to a proper name, but alas the software doesn't allow that for category names. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 30 October 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:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There are very few if any non-NGO entries in Category:Poverty and hunger organizations; it's not a useful distinction. -- Beland (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we should not categorize things by what they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nomination. Virtually everything in the parent category is an NGO too. Also, this doesn't realy seem to fit into the pattern of other subcategories at this level. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no problem with the prefix "non-" in the name, and the number of entries is not too few. (There are over 5,000 categories with "non-" in the name.)
Comment doesn't "non-governmental" mean it is not under government control. That sounds like classifying by what it is not to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- NGO is a well-recognised concept worldwide, covering charities and campaigning organisations. JPL's comment has taken this discussion down a dead end. The British Ministry of Overseas Developemnt, and UN releif organisations are excluded because they are governmental. The real problem is that many relief organisation are involved in many areas of aid, not just famine releif. The result is that categorisation of many aid organisations will have multiple categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, the merger would not really help with overcat by specific type of program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is; do not merge The parents of Category:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations and Category:Poverty and hunger organizations are different. The NGOs would lose their connection with the NGO category tree if the merger were to occur and there is no point in losing this connection which is there for the purposes of article navigation. A reverse merge would also not be helpful as various government organizations exist in Category:Poverty and hunger organizations and they would then not be correctly categorized or they would lose all connection to 'poverty and hunger' if they would deleted from the merged category. Hmains (talk)
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:Rename. "Category:Hunger relief organizations" is a new subcategory. Instead of having poverty orgs in "poverty and hunger" and hunger orgs in "hunger", it makes more sense to rename and list the hunger category separately in the appropriate parent categories. -- Beland (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are these organisations promoting or creating poverty ? If not, then the title should be "anti-poverty organisations". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anti-poverty would imply they oppose poverty. Many of these organizations help people in poverty, put some cannot be said to advocate policies that they perceive as a way to end it. Also at least some see "anti-poverty" as a designation of those who seek zoning and other NIMBY policies to get the poor somewhere else, which would be the exact opposite of what some of these groups do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment rename only after someone has made sure that all the appropriate subcats and articles have been placed somewhere in the category tree of Category:Hunger relief organizationsHmains (talk) 20:12, 3 November 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:speedy rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:03, 27 October 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:1906 San Francisco Earthquake survivors[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: capitalization: Earthquake should be earthquake. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and all-inclusive. The population of San Francisco in 1906 was just under 400,000 and the 1906 earthquake claimed 3,000 lives. Hence, about 397,000 San Franciscans, along with the rest of the world's population at the time, survived the earthquake. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the biographies on Wikipedia for the 397,000 people you mention? By definition, the category is for notable people. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and as being defining to the people who were there at the time. Most of the biographies I checked in the category mention the fact they were in San Francicso at the time. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the significance of defining vs. a significant life event? While being there may have been stressful, how is this defining? Did the quake cause these people to modify their lives or motivate them to some greatness? As I kind of asked below, how close did one need to be to be included in this category? Technically every one on the east coast survived. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no one thinks about any of the people in this category and comes up with "oh hey, he survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake!" It's not going to be in the top ten or even top 100 things that come to mind. A list of notable survivors (and victims, if any) would be an interesting addition to the earthquake article but the category is not necessary. Buck Winston (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surviving an earthwuake is the general outcome of those who expeirence it, and does not require much effort or lead to much interaction with it. The earthwauke does not proactively try to destroy you, thus this does not work as a parralel to our main survivor cat, Holocaust survivors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is nice that the articles mention this event, are the individuals defined for surviving the earthquake or for something else? I'll bet the latter. Also what does surviving the quake mean. Were you at the epicenter? Within 50 miles? In the area most damaged? How about having survived the fire which did the most damage. Bottom line too many problems to keep this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i hadnt considered deletion. People should know that for the last 50 years or so, the city and bay have celebrated anyone who survived the quake. it wasnt really survival, it was simply experiencing it, that mattered. like losing civil war veterans, and other war veterans. its a locally notable subject. i need to think about whether its inclusion criteria or name/description are encyclopedic, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A war veteran has been in some way proactively involved in the military. The American Civil War Veteran category would be more relevant if it included evryone who lived in Atlanta, Chambersburg and other directly effected areas at the time. However it does not. War Veterans are in the military, earthwuake survivors happen to be in some area that in theory means they somehow experienced the earthquake, which is a very short event. The analogy does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended towards war veterans. This may not be strictly speaking analogous, but Im simply trying to explain why these people are celebrated. maybe its a silly thing to point out, but we do, so that may make it a notable category. It is noted in each persons article their connection to the event, some prominently (like military men who helped with the relief efforts, or Caruso who refused to return to SF afterwards). Interestingly enough, i can find few mentions of survivors of natural events on WP. the Johnstown Flood has some mention, one of whom is in the List of last survivors of historical events, almost all of which are human created events.(merc)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom This is simply a case correction, nothing more. Hmains (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom This is a closer call than Hmains seems to think, but we have lots of "survivors" categories, everything from shootings to various concentration camps, to more generalized things like "genocide" or "stroke". This event may or may not be defining for each of the people here, but it seems much closer to the various single incident categories like Category:Alamo survivors, Category: Halifax Explosion survivors; surprising that we don't a Titanic survivors cat.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is one of proximity. As noted above, everyone who didn't die in San Francisco during the earthquake "survived" it, whether they were at the epicenter or miles from it, whether they were in any danger from the quake or not. There is a big difference between surviving a specific incident like being shot or an event or location that is strictly geographically defined like a battle or a fort or a concentration camp and an event like an earthquake which is geographically widespread. Buck Winston (talk) 00:56, 27 October 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.
