Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

Category:Networks by scale

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) 22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Computer networks by scale for clarity -- this category is solely for Computer networks. Cgingold (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:34, 18 June 2008 (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.

subcategory pages of Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin

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) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merger

(all tagged)

Nominator's rationale: as per alike nominations made, mostly last month (see subcats of Category:Argentine people by ethnic or national origin, Category:Brazilian people by ethnic or national origin, Category:British people by ethnic or national origin, Category:French people by ethnic or national origin, Category:German people by ethnic or national origin). Again, the rename is more clearly stated as to whether the people are of, say, Algerian nationality and Dutch descent, Dutch nationality and Algerian descent, dual Algerian-Dutch citizens, or of any nationality and dual Algerian-Dutch descent. (Furthermore the issue of whether there should be a hyphen or not is avoided.) Mayumashu (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (pending full list), especially as people from the Netherlands Antilles (no 4) all have Dutch citizenship; there will be others like this. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, per clarity and recent similar cfds.
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename per nom, makes sense CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. DutchDevil (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (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:Liverpool and Everton FC players who have been burgled

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. — CharlotteWebb 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopedic. Hut 8.5 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For obvious reasons. Garion96 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could have as a subcategory Category:Liverpool and Everton FC players who have been burgled by Liverpool and Everton FC players. Postdlf (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify & delete A tad pointy. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to more concise Liverpudlians are thieving scum to better reflect purpose of the category, then delete. Skomorokh 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a repeat of
Bencherlite^Talk 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Unencyclopedic and unneccessary: if the robberies were on a larger scale, signifying a specific problem, then it might be justified. Otherwise it makes as much sense as "Burgled Authors" or "Rappers who have been burgled" would. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal - Can we replace this with Category:Wikipedia editors who are obsessed with Liverpool soccer burglaries? Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (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.

Embassies and high commissions by city categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all, and sort out misplaced buildings in further editing as Vegaswikian suggested.

Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose renaming Category:Embassies in Washington, D.C. to Category:Diplomatic missions in Washington, D.C.

Propose renaming Category:Embassies and High Commissions in London to Category:Diplomatic missions in London

Propose renaming Category:Embassies in Berlin to Category:Diplomatic missions in Berlin

Propose renaming Category:Embassies in Prague to Category:Diplomatic missions in Prague

Propose renaming Category:Embassies and High Commissions in Ottawa to Category:Diplomatic missions in Ottawa

Propose renaming Category:Embassies and High Commissions in Bridgetown to Category:Diplomatic missions in Bridgetown

Nominator's rationale: This category is placed within

Диалог 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The nominator originally listed each of the above separately; I normally don't like to alter others' posts, but as these all had identical explanations and would seem to stand or fall on the exact same reasoning, I merged these under one header with the shared explanation for easier group discussion.[1] Postdlf (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Apolostic Nunciatures should become an Embassy, or be excluded. GreenJoe 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain your reasoning? Diplomatic missions are what they are called by their government. That should not preclude us using categories to group likes together. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~, diplomatic mission is apparently the appropriate general term for embassies and high commissions, and is the name of the parent category. We don't need to address the classification of Apostolic Nunciatures to resolve that. Postdlf (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The larger problem is that there are generally two distinct types of articles in this category. Some are indeed about the overall diplomatic missions, such as
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Ottawa (even more confusingly, some articles about missions are also placed in Category:Diplomatic buildings!). These two different uses of the term "embassy," the technical one referring to the primary diplomatic mission and the colloquial one referring to its offices in a capital city, remind me of the different uses for "church," and in Category:Churches we ultimately decided the branch would be for physical buildings as the lay user would expect. From there, we see that diplomatic missions are to countries whereas embassies and consulates are located in cities, and to the extent these articles are worthy—the Ottawa category is populated almost entirely by stubs, for structures that may not otherwise be notable—the tree should be kept and cleaned up.-choster (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Hmm. I'm going to withdraw my vote and just plead ignorance as to how this should be handled. Postdlf (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support
- (a) Russavia's proposed naming convention is consistent with the "Diplomatic Missions by country" category
- (b) "Diplomatic Missions in (city)" is more inclusive than "Embassies and High Commissions of (city)", which could exclude missions from Taiwan, Palestine, the EU and the Holy See
- (c) "Diplomatic Missions in (city)" is less cumbersome than "Embassies and High Commissions of (city)".
- (d) "Diplomatic Missions in (city)" can be used for all cities, while "Embassies and High Commissions of (city)" would be superbulous for non Commonwealth cities
Kransky (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. choster paints a clear picture another problem. I say do this rename for consistency with what we have now. Then move the discussion on how to split out the buildings from the mission can be moved to a talk page. Basically there is nothing wrong with the proposal when you compare it to the other categories. While the issues that choster has identified are real, they should not stop this rename they are the basis for another cleanup that involves a split that will need to be done manually since the bots will not be able to handle it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Buildings probably could go under Category:Chanceries which is the formal name for at least an embassy, but does that include consulate buildings? According to chancery, a dab page, all building for diplomatic missions are house in a chancery. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Rename as nom - I do not see why Apostolic Nuncios should not be included: they are (in part) the diplomatic representatives of the Pope, but not being a Roman Catholic, I take no strong views on this. High Commissions are (or were originally) from the government of one Commonwealth country to the government of another, which the British monarch was the sovereign head of state of both. Embassies are from one head of state to another, but the British Queen as monarch of Australia can hardly send an embassy to herslef as Queen of Breat Britain. On the other hand, noth kinds of diplomatic mission are to a country and invariably in its capital, so that diplomatic missions by city ought to be redundant. Support Kransky on "in" rather than "of". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (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:American Quarter Horse

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 both to

Bencherlite^Talk 08:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Quarter Horses already exists and has 100s of articles and many subcats. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark Given that the related article is
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment: This would only work if someone has a bot to do the change, there are multiple subcategories within Quarter Horses and probably a couple hundred articles inside all the subcats. It really doesn't matter one way or the other, but I have no idea how to make a bot change all the articles that are tagged. Also, Quarter Horses has been a stable category for years, a delete or redirect would be a lot easier, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If approved, the bots will do the work. No need to worry here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Quarter Horses and Category:American Quarter Horse into Category:American Quarter Horses to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither support or oppose, but note that Article is titled with the singular. Whatever is standard procedure. Would you object to asking other folks on
WP:EQUINE if anyone has a problem with this? There are a couple Quarter Horse aficionados who should be asked to weigh in if they care. Oh, and do note that all the subcats are "Quarter Horse" this and that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Categories are generally plural and that is in fact a criteria for speedy renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as someone other than me runs the bot! LOL! There appears to be no objection at WP:EQUINE, so if you guys want to do this, I honestly don't care. I just want ONE category whatever it is called, and I would be delighted if it was just done. Can we at least delete Category:American Quarter Horse and solve that part of it? Please? Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to toss in my two cents (as a member of the Equine WP), all of the other horse breed articles are plural and include the full name of the breed, so my vote would be for Category:American Quarter Horses. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now what happens? Who actually fixes these categories? Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 24 June 2008 (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:Humor theorists

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose renaming Category:Humor theorists to Category:Humor researchers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessarily narrow category name: the category includes not only researchers in theories of humor, but also historians (of humor), taxonomists, hobbyists, etc. See Humor research. Laudak (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Seems sensible enough, and it matches main article on humor research. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (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:WikiProject Epistemology

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Nominator's rationale:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Epistemology has been incorporated into WikiProject Philosophy as the Epistemology task force. This category thus refers to a non-existent project and should be merged with Category:Epistemology task force articles, renamed as a task force category for the portal or simply deleted. Skomorokh 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I created this category, and I support its deletion. It is the product of early organization of WP:PHIL. There may also be other organizational inconsistencies of the same sort. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (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:Street Fighter anime

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) 22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Street Fighter anime to Category:Street Fighter anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: Over a year ago, the anime and manga genre categories were merged (CFD discussion). And as you can see, many other animanga categories are merged (Category:Anime and manga by topic, Category:Video games based on anime and manga and Category:Anime and manga series categories). I think the category should be renamed to include manga based on the franchise (like Category:.hack anime and manga). Nohansen (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (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:Old software

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

Bencherlite^Talk 08:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The current title does not convey clear inclusion criteria. Recommend renaming this to Category:Discontinued software as it currently serves as the parent category for Category:Discontinued Linux distributions, Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows. — CharlotteWebb 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for clearer name and to bring it into alignment with its contents. Maralia (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep the way it is: old software is a more broad term. I think "Discontinued Software" is not appropriate because:

-Some old software may not have been discontinued, and has been simply without an update for some time and a new version may came out some day (if so, it should be then removed from this category)
-Software can have been replace by a new version (Internet Explorer 5 replaced by newer version, as opposed to other software for wich development has completly ended, like the old mosaic web browser)
-Software may not have been discontinued yet, and be appropriate for this category, just see the case of PartitionMagic, it is old, buggy, does not work on Vista, does not even work on XP if it detects Vista Partitions, and Symantec still sells it... so it is cleary not discontinued, but it is old and unsupported...
-Sometimes it is hard to know is the software has really been discontinued, while it is easy to see if it is old....
I know the category name may be "ugly", but I think it is the best name, there are alternative names at the talk page and a reason why "old software" is seems to me always a broader definition. SF007 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why old is not ambiguous? What actually is old and when does software become old and why is this defining? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit, old might be ambiguous, a proper name should be like: ((Old AND unsupported) OR discontinued), see my point? I don't say "old software" is a good name, because it isn't, and I would like very much to find a better name to this category, but I think the alternative suggested here is not better the the current name... SF007 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. It's not simply a matter of "old" being an "ugly" category name; "old" just doesn't mean anything in particular, so of course it's "broader" than "discontinued." Someone suggested on the category talk page that it be limited to software at least eight years old, but that's of course irrelevant when that limitation is not reflected in the category name itself, and it's a completely arbitrary cutoff. SF007 also just recently added Kazaa to this category,[2] which last had an update in 2006, so obviously there's no consensus even among this category's supporters as to what constitutes "old" software. Postdlf (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I added Kazaa because there are many reasons to believe it is unsupported, not definitely because of its age.
Rename per nom to match subcats and to make it clearer.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is possible also that software has been discontinued on one platform but continued on another. Example. Windows 98 software for example is no longer supported however things are still support (for now) under Windows 2000 and even XP. Likewise some things may have been continued on Linux, while discontinued under Windows. Under rename a Windows product no longer supported under Windows but supported elsewhere will still have to be classified as continued software. CaribDigita (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Thats exactly my point... SF007 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It seems like you're arguing that "discontinued" doesn't work for a category criteria, but I don't see anything in your comment that defends "old" as a proper classificatory term for a category. Maybe the category should just be deleted outright. Postdlf (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my point, sure it would would work, but it would have less software than the current category. (again, just take the example of PartitionMagic, that would not fit in that category...) SF007 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point of a category isn't to try and group as many articles together as possible. So I don't understand how anything you've said is responsive here. The problem is there's no definition for what should or shouldn't go in this category, so it can't exist as it is. "Discontinued" is definable. That it doesn't capture anything that isn't "discontinued" is both obvious and irrelevant, unless you can point to another organizing concept that would work better for some clear purpose. Postdlf (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, you are right, i finally came up with "unmaintained software"! this would solve all the problems, since it could include PartitionMagic (that has not been discontinued yet, but it is also not maintained), and software that has been recently discontinued, but that is not old... I hope this really brings us to a consensus, I like much better "unmaintained software" than "old software" SF007 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed: Since I was the main supporter of the name of this category and I finally came up with a better one, I ~~will change~~ have changed the items from category "old software" to "Unmaintained software"... I think thats OK... right? 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) If someone has a better name, please voice your opinion! SF007 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that you decided that you can do a rename out of process. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Believe me, I am also very glad I came up with a better name... SF007 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was not an endorsement. It was pointing out that you renamed the category out of process. The process is to nominate your proposal, allow the discussion to run its course and then if there is consensus, make the change. Right now I'm not sure that there is any consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dang, and I was just about to propose Category:Legacy software, which is how this type of ware is described by the industry. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, the problem is that according to the wikipedia article on Legacy systems: "...that legacy systems are simply (and only) computer systems that are both installed and working.", and even if "legacy code" or "legacy software" would just mean something like "old software", "unmaintatined software" seems "better" because then this way it can have programs discontinued recently... If i thought it was a better name, believe me, I would change it all again... Anyway, I think the current name is a good one... SF007 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should not have changed it in the first place whilst the discussion here was going on. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support this, but I'm not sure if it applies to everything or only a portion of the entries. Not sure how the parent - child relationships would work. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Legacy software" at least has the virtue of being a defined, recognized concept. "
    Unmaintained software" just redirects to abandonware, which seems narrower than how SF007 is trying to use the term "unmaintained," and perhaps "abandoned" is synonymous with discontinued? But "orphaned" might also be appropriate. To echo the comments above, this needs to be discussed further rather than resolved by unilateral whim. Postdlf (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (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:Absolutely cast members

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) 23:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorisation, actors are not categorised by the shows in which they have appeared. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:OCAT "performer by performance" Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per policy/precedent against performer by performance categories. Maralia (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above invocations of sound precedent and policy. Postdlf (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (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:Pacific University MFA faculty

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) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pacific University MFA faculty to Category:Pacific University faculty

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for this specific of a category, and broader category would prevent over categorization. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2008 (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:Isle of Man football clubs

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) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Isle of Man football clubs to Category:Manx football clubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use the correct demonym. –

Jay 09:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion has been included in
Jay 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:10, 16 June 2008 (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.

Cook Islands

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: ~~move to the Falkland Islands~~ rename both.

Bencherlite^Talk 08:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose renaming Category:Cook Islands people to Category:Cook Island people

Category:Cook Islander Bahá'ís to Category:Cook Island Bahá'ís

Nominator's rationale: Rename both. Proper adjective for people from the Cook Islands is "Cook Island". "Cook Islander" is a noun and "Cook Islands", while plausible, is generally not used, as far as I am aware. Other categories for people from the Cook Islands use "Cook Island" as the adjective. Notified creator with {{

subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: If what you're saying is correct this is truly an oddity, GO, seeing as all of the other multiple-island groups that I've seen use the plural form -- which is, of course, grammatically correct. Also, there isn't a particular island called "Cook Island" among the 22 islands. But as a New Zealand resident you are obviously better placed than most of us to be familiar with actual usage in the region. When you say that "Cook Islands" is generally not used, do you mean by residents of the Cook Islands -- or by NZ media or other news media in the region? Cgingold (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just saw that both the main article and Demographics of the Cook Islands use the term "Cook Islanders" -- but without any kind of sourcing, and I have no idea which editors made those edits. Cgingold (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing noun demographics and adjectival demographics. Cook Island people are called Cook Islanders. They are not, however, "Cook Islands people". See more below. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can endorse Grutness' response to this, outlined below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason why demonyms suck, in general. I would prefer consistent use of "People from [place]" as is done at most (all?) sub-national levels. — CharlotteWebb 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm a little baffled here as the same nom was supporting a rename to 'Falkland Islands people' just a few days ago. In cases of doubt I thought we were going for 'Foo people' so this suggests - keep the first, rename the second to
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Just the difference between guessing at a correct adjective and knowing what the correct one is, that's all. See my comments below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pending further information. "Cook Islands people" is used in the Constitution of the Cook Islands. "Cook Island Maori" appears to be a term for the ethnic group, at least in New Zealand; but not everyone in the Cook Islands belongs to this ethnic group.--Pharos (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cook Islands people" is only used in the constitution as part of a quote made by a NZ official in 1965. It does not, of itself, use the term. See my comments below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion - obviously I tried to create a category with the best name I could think of but I did little research - pretty much what sounded best to my ear. I have no investment in any solution. To my ear "Cook Islander" is someone from the Cook Island country. I can relate to Cook Island Bahá'ís but it just sounded a bit more off. To my ear "Cook Islands people" sounds the most odd but I'll go with what the grammatical experts want.--Smkolins (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. Cook Island is the usual adjectival demonym (Cook Islanders is the correct noun demonym), though the term "Cook Islands" is occasionally but incorrectly used as an adjectival demonym. I'm a little baffled by Roundhouse being a little baffled, as what the people of the Falklands call themselves seems tangentially related at best to what the people of the Cook Islands call themselves. Which is "Cook Island people", a term also widely used both in the Cooks them,selves (e.g. The government of the Cook Islands and The Cook Island Herald newspaper) and elsewhere (e.g., by the New Zealand government, NZ census office, and UNICEF). By way of analogy, think of France. The current category names in that instance would be "France people" and "Frenchman Bahá'ís", whereas the correct term in both cases would be "French". Grutness...wha? 01:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've answered my question: the islanders themselves -- not just NZ media -- do, in fact, use the term "Cook Island people", etc. Cgingold (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still appears to me that in many of these sources "Cook Island" is used in the sense of "Cook Island Maori", the ethnic group, which not everyone in the Cook Islands belongs to, as opposed to an adjectival demonym. Can you clarify this?--Pharos (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/responses (nominator). Yes; I too am a bit baffled at the bafflement. I live in New Zealand, and the Cook Islands is a country in free association with New Zealand, so obviously I'm more familiar with the correct terminology for things from the Cook Islands than I am with things from the Falkland Islands. I honestly don't know whether "Falkland Islands" or "Falkland Island" is the correct adjective. I am, however, quite sure that "Cook Island" is correct, and "Cook Islands" is incorrect, as Grutness has outlined. The use of "Cook Islands people" in the constitution is not actually used in that way by the constitution's drafters — it is a quote from the NZ representative to the UN that was made in 1965. It's possible the usage in that document was incorrect, or that the usage has changed since 1965. Truth be told, I'd be fine with the use of either the plural or singular form, despite my personal knowledge that one is right and one is wrong — it's not that big of a deal to me; the primary purpose of the nom was to fix the Bahais category, and I thought I would throw in the people category for consistency (the other subs use "Cook Island"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that my question has been answered, I'm happy to defer to Good Ol’factory & Grutness's knowledge of the subject. So rename per nom -- although I still maintain that it's a real grammatical oddity (but how boring things would be without the occasional oddity!). Cgingold (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If 'Cook Island people' is in popular use and 'Cook Islands people' isn't, how come their google ratio is 85:5410? ('Cook islanders' gets 17,700 - perhaps this also occurs as an instruction.) This is about 1:65:200, not a close call. In any case I thought Wikipedia's intention was to be consistent globally rather than requiring familiarity with local terms such as Liverpudlian and 'Caian'. (The corresponding numbers for the Falklands are 12:62:16,000.) There is also NZ official usage in 1998. (No-one is claiming that Falkland Islands is an adjective, I hope. We are using Foo XXX as in
-- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Probably because the population of NZ + Cook Islands is miniscule as compared to the rest of the world, so those who know the proper usage get overwhelmed by the mass of those who don't. If you want to use an incorrect term in the name of consistency or conformity with the majority — by all means, do it. As I said, it's not that big of a deal. It's the question of one letter, and "Cook Island" isn't exactly "Liverpudlian". We already use "Kiribati" instead of the correct "i-Kiribati", and it's nothing to worry too much about, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 17 June 2008 (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.