Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Scots-speaking countries and territories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also must be confusing Scots with Gaelic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, I've struck my comment, silly me. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (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:Galician-speaking countries and territories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge if Kept so it only contains Galicia (Spain). Neutral on delete (I'm conflicted between a clear categorization scheme and 1 article cats not aiding navigation).RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete. In the Irish discussion of yesterday the suggestion was made to cut the entire tree (possibly listifying), which is reasonable with many languages that are spoken in just one country or one region. This particular language supports that suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete, a language spoken only in, er, Galicia, therefore stating the obvious with no chance of expansion. Sionk (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (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:Aragonese-speaking countries and territories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (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:Asturian-speaking countries and territories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (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:Basque-speaking countries and territories[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge if Kept so it only contains Basque Country (autonomous community). Neutral on delete (I'm conflicted between clear categorization scheme and 1 article cats not aiding navigation).RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete, same as above. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support delete, a very unique language spoken only in, er, the Basque country. Sionk (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a pointless category. It may be that Basque has historically been spoken on the other side of the Pyrenees in Gascony, but I do not think adding add would make a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2015 (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.

People excommunicated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints[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. The factual development - creation of a parent category and moving some people there - seems to be the closest to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Excommunication is a very specific way of being kicked out of a Latter Day Saint sect. For example, if you leave the LDS Church under your own choice, you are not coincided "Excommunicated". You are only "Excommunicated" thew a Disciplinary council. I don't know if that same applies to the FLDS Sect, as Warren Jeffs seems to decided arbitrarily. However, this means that most of the people (such as Carolyn Jessop, Ruby Jessop and Rebecca Musser) in Category:Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints members are not in "People excommunicated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" since they left under there own accord and there is nothing showing they were "excommunicated". By removing "excommunicated" from the title, it would allow these people to be removed from a category suggesting that they are still member of the FLDS Church. I a nutshell, it would all the category to be better used.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I under stand you thought process, I can't say I agree with you. Just because it part of a "series" in another category, doesn't make this one work. As it is the category is problematic. People like those I listed aren't in this one because there is no sources saying they were excommunicated. However, the three people that are listed may or may not belong also:
  1. Brent W. Jeffs page says nothing about him be excommunicated. It only say he is a former FLDS member.
  2. I doubt the all the Lost boys were formally excommunicated. I would bet Jeffs just said "Leave".
  3. Blackmore page says he was excommunicated, but cites nothing.
I can understand keeping some "People excommunicated by....sect" but this one is just to hard to keep properly populated. The FLDS are so secretive that it is just too hard to know if the person leaving was formally "Excommunicated" or just left. If we created "Category:Former Fundamentalist Church..members", but leave "Category:People excommunicated by the Fundamentalist..", the only person who may or may not belong is Blackmore, making this a category of ONE.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would leave a category of one. First of all, excommunication in the FLDS Church is not as formalized as in the LDS Church--generally, there are no disciplinary councils. The FLDS prophet can excommunicate you by his word alone. The lost boys were excommunicated in such a manner, according to multiple films and articles about them. (This is not currently cited in the article, as you point out, but it is in the lead sentence.) Brent Jeffs was one of the lost boys and he says he was excommunicated in his book, though again, this is not yet cited in the article. Although the FLDS Church is secretive, those who are excommunicated have often gone to the media, and there have been dozens and dozens in the past two years alone (with thousands having been excommunicated in 2011), so there is some room for growth, especially as these individuals write books, appear in documentaries, etc. Finally, I would just say that there is usually quite a difference in circumstances between those who are ex'd from the FLDS as opposed to those who leave/escape under their own volition, so I think it would make sense to have a subcategory for those who were ex'd that is separate from the more general "former members" category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Good Olfactory, I wouldn't mind to have a former members category as a parent and an excommunicated category as a child and we may evaluate after a year or so to which extent these categories have been populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The objections to renaming basically boil down to "we assume that the FLDS are similar enough to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their disciplinary procedures for members to make similar categories". However the evidence is not at all such to support that. Warren Jeffs governs by fiat not by council, so the structures are very different, and the categories should be different to reflect this. This category is border-line too small at present, but a rename will move us away from that part. The LDS Church excommunicated category does not fit with the former category because it contains some people who were rebaptized after excommunication, so the two seperate categories are justified there, I do not believe they are justified here, they just would lead to category clutter. However, it will also be true here that in theory not all excommunicated are former, since I am pretty sure the FLDS would allow excommunicated to return under some circumstances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""we assume that the FLDS are similar enough to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their disciplinary procedures for members to make similar categories". That was not at all my rationale—I explicitly acknowledged exactly the point you made. Anyway, being excommunicated from the FLDS Church can be just as life-changing and defining as being excommunicated from any other church can be—and it is, for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The measure is not how life changing an event is, but also does the category have reasonable room to grow. The target category has more reasonable room to grow, and having both with this size of category is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree: How "defining" a characteristic is for those categorized is the central consideration in categorization: WP:CATDEF. Growth potential is also a consideration, but in my opinion it cannot override definingness. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too long and too specific a category. Probably not going to have more than a handful of entries. "Former" isn't any better because the way categorization works around here is that current and former holders of a distinction are allowed in same category. pbp 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is a long name a potential reason to delete a category? The only reason that the name of the category is long is because the name of the church is long. It's not that long name of a name in the sense that it's simply in the standard Wikipedia format "People excommunicated by CHURCHNAME". I still maintain that this is a central, defining characteristic of those so categorized. Also, the "current/former" practice that you outline has generally not been applied to religious beliefs. There are currently lots of categories that categorize people by former religion. See Category:People by former religion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. During this discussion, User:Johnpacklambert created Category:Former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He also moved the article Winston Blackmore out the nominated category and placed it in the new category, even though the article states that Blackmore was excommunicated. Can we please wait for the nomination to close before we start making changes like this and thereby emptying out the nominated category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The categorization of Blackmore in this category was stated to be unsourced above. No one has provided a source for his being so categorized. On the issue of former, the clear consensus is that people who have left a religion cannot be categorized by it. We have Category:Former Roman Catholics, Category:Former Muslims and lots more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blackmore was excommunicated from the FLDS Church, and this is not a particularly controversial fact about him—it's the entire reason that the FLDS community in BC split in two. If you're looking for citations, there are many that are possible, including this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree Blackmore was excommunicated. I wasn't 100% sure until know. Also the clam that "The clear consensus is that people who have left a religion cannot be categorized by it" is false. Category:Former Roman Catholics and Category:Former Muslims were "kept" (not deleted based on that claim).--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 19:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that User:Johnpacklambert was arguing that you should not categorize a person who has left a religion in a category for the religion that does not include "former" in the name. He's saying that if someone is a former Muslim, we can categorize them as a former Muslim but not as a Muslim. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is exactly what I am saying. We need to former categories because we cannot just lump such people as Muslims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2015 (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.

Storylines in fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mege. These two categories overlap, and there appears to be a content fork. Joe Gatt (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While these are closely related, most of the storyline category material would not sit well in the timelines grouping. They mainly contain stories, not timelines. For example, America (Judge Dredd story) is a story told within that comicbook series, but it is not a timeline. SFB 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi SFB. If that is the case, perhaps one should explicitly make clear the distinction between a storyline and a timeline, within each respective category, for the sake of clarity. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SFB, and it is clear, storylines involve particular plot points, and does not need to mark time in an orderly manner, timelines do not need to involve particular plot points, and do need to show a clear flow of time. They are clearly distinguished in their naming. Multiple storylines can exist concurrently in the flow of a fictional property (and therefore be shown in a single timeline). -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Story points are not necessarily time points. (This not even going into that, as fiction, story points could exist outside of time, depending on the lack of time (or timelessness) of situations and/or location of the story. - jc37 21:14, 19 February 2015 (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.

Terrorism by city[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Category:Terrorism by city to Category:Terrorist incidents by city
Category:Terrorism in London to Category:Terrorist incidents in London
Category:Terrorism in Moscow to Category:Terrorist incidents in Moscow
Category:Terrorism in Mumbai to Category:Terrorist incidents in Mumbai
Category:Terrorism in Paris to Category:Terrorist incidents in Paris
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The articles in these categories are almost entirely about specific terrorist incidents, and should be renamed as such. GCarty (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about that, but yes that sounds reasonable. --GCarty (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2015 (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:Religious antisemitism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Antisemitism. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:NOTABLE category and is also an WP:OVERCAT as this theme is covered by antisemitism. It contains 3 trivial disputable entries . Nothing about the cat merits having it.--Inayity (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Antisemitism. This not a useful navigational category, a small one at that, and the contents don't really work with the title either (being "Fooism and anti-semitism" rather than "Fooist antisemitism"). SFB 22:31, 22 January 2015 (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:Georgia (country) animated television series by 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: Delete, already in parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to all parent categories. The only content of these two categories is a single article, the only article in the category Category:Animated television series in Georgia (country). The only country to have categories for animated television series by decades is America (apart from Japanese anime & manga). Per WP:SMALLCAT. NB: Created as a result of renaming. Hugo999 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Not a useful part of a broad tree and only serves to split up information and make navigation harder. SFB 22:32, 22 January 2015 (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.

Male and female murderers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge four:
no consensus on others. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See drop down boxes for nominated categories.
Part I: Male murderers and serial killers

Propose deleting

Part II: Female murderers and serial killers

Propose merging

Propose deleting

This is a follow-up to this discussion, where the "FOOian male murderers" and "FOOian male serial killers" categories were deleted and merged into Category:Male murderers and Category:Male serial killers. There was some talk in that discussion about eliminating all murderers by gender categories. Others were in favour of keeping them and others were in favour of deleting only the male ones but keeping the female ones. Therefore, there are basically three options available:

  • Option A. Implement Part I + Part II. Eliminate both the male and the female categories.
  • Option B. Implement Part I only. Eliminate only the male categories; keep the female categories.
  • Option C. No change. Keep both the male and the female categories. (With the understanding that the male "by nationality" categories have already been deleted.)

(I doubt anyone will want to do Part II but not Part I.) I favour A or B, whichever has the most support. I do not favour C; Category:Male murderers in particular is woefully underpopulated (and probably always will be), so I think at least Part I needs to be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Category:Female serial killers. Like the Serial killer article states, female serial killers are significantly rarer than male serial killers. The last thing we need are editors tagging women as serial killers simply because the women killed two or more people. There is more to being a serial killer than simply the kill count. We already have problems with people understanding that regarding Category:Male serial killers. I know that the rarity of a topic is often an argument for why the category should be kept, but it's not a good argument in this case, in my opinion. Also delete Category:Male murderers and Category:Female murderers; why are these categories so underpopulated? Why do we need them since they are so underpopulated? Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A killers is not something we need to divide by gender; it's a last rung intersection category; such as German female serial killers, for which we don't have an article because, presumably, it's not a notable triple intersection, or Female murderers or Male murderers, double intersections. Do we have any of these as articles? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose top level gender deletion (male/female murderers) and Upmerge all "Fooian female murderers" to both the fooian AND female murderers trees. Per my comments at the last nomination, the nationality is not relevant when discussing the gender aspect of murderer – the things that link and distinguish female murderers are not really modified by their being Spanish or Portuguese, for example. At a top level, the gender of a murderer is relevant as there are significant gender disparities in murder. Motives and circumstances of murders committed by males are often different from those committed by females. There is a significant body of work on this topic that makes it relevant to the subjects (just one example). SFB 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good Olfactory: I'm not really sure why my above rationale isn't one of the proposed options. It seems like quite an obvious one in that it would bring the female tree into line with the newly trimmed male tree, per the previous discussion. SFB 22:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of simplicity in the nomination, basically. It is open to users to propose something other than what I have, though. I highly doubt that Category:Male murderers will ever fully be populated, however, and I think those who propose this should acknowledge that or commit to do the hours of work to rectify it. There are thousands of articles that could legitimately go in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming that virtually all the female murderers are categorised as such, this would be very easy to populate with a cat scan of all the non-female contents. SFB 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't be confident that that is the case. A few years ago, I know that some users were involved in manually upmerging some of the contents of the "FOOian female murderers" categories, because they disagreed with their existence. I was involved in trying to get that to end without a formal discussion, but I don't think the ending was particularly clean. Some female murders are also subcategorized into the Category:FOOian people convicted of murder or Category:People convicted of murder by FOO trees without being categorized as a female murderer.
But even if feasible to populate, I'm not clear on what the utility of such a category would be. For purposes of category navigation, of what use would it be? Why would anyone ever consult such a category? A collection of all the articles about murderers on Wikipedia, excluding the female ones?—it just doesn't strike me as being terribly useful/needed/helpful for much of anything. It was not created until recently when a feminist editor realized that there were categories for female murderers–suggesting to me that it was created to balance some sort of cosmic gender balance rather than to be something truly useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as being part of the established category structure and as being defining for the individual. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The male ones at least are not part of "an established category structure". They were quite recently created, the subcategories were recently deleted, and Category:Male murderers is no where close to fully populated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is a category where gender is unique and notable. Valoem talk contrib 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gender is not a unique feature in these categories—all categories about people could be divided by gender. The gender of a notable person is always a notable fact, but that doesn't mean it's something we should categorize by. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Option A) - This is just finishing the previous nom. I would be fine with merging all the serial killer cats to the corresponding murderer cats too, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. sources can't even agree whether it should be 2 or 3 or more, and apparently neither does the media or do government agencies. - jc37 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and de-disperse where applicable, per WP:FINAL RUNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep all (option C) Clearest organization. If subdivisions, e.g. Catalan, will be relevant, do not divide by gender. gidonb (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already, do not divide British countries (e.g. Welsh) by gender, only British. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Do not divide by gender" would be Option A. - jc37 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, Option A for Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland, Option C for the rest (i.e. the bulk of the geographic entities). Generalized as Option C. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2015 (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/2015_January_22&oldid=1138408653"