Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

Category:Category:VMI Keydets football coaches

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 delete G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I accidentally typed in "Category:" twice when making it. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (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:People descendant from Northern Ireland

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 Category:People descendant from Northern Ireland to Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry. Your closer would have voted for Category:People of Irish descent as while it may be plausible for one entity to be born in a stable without being a horse, when you have hundreds of thousands of the stable-born to categorise it does begin to seem like horse is very likely the word you're looking for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think this category should be named something like Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry if kept. How defining is in for someone if their parents are from Northern Ireland, or their grandparents or there great grandparents? While a rename is possible I really question if this category is defining. On top of that, we have, I think, 7 categories for 16 people. Clearly not a great way to categorize these people. I'm not convinced that an up merge to Category:People from Northern Ireland to keep these people in that category tree is justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be better defined if allowed to continue. What is the membership criteria. Perhaps "non-Northern Irish" with three grandparents born in Northern Ireland. I suspect that this category was not intended to cover people in Ireland or the United Kingdom.
More likely this is overcategorisation, or overly-Northern Ireland-centric for a global encyclopaedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same thought applies to all similar categories. Category:People of English descent seems to really be Category:Non-English people of English descent, and as loosely defined as they are, they are hopelessly incomplete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - we have
talk) 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Category:People of Irish descent 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of Northern Irish descent. I don't think "Northern Irish" as an adjectival phrase for "descent" is objectionable in the same way as it is when applied to people, though of course I might be wrong... I suppose many "descents" had cut off before Northern Ireland began to exist. Don't we have a category for Ulster Scots people etc? Or did that get merged into here. Oh, we do Category:Ulster Scots people, hidden away in Category:Northern Irish of Scottish descent, which is surely wrong anyway, as most are in Canada etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, I think using "Northern Irish" as an adjectival phrase is likely to cause a lot of upset even when applied only indirectly to people, but if you do want to open that can of worms then I'll notify the Irish wikiprojects and let those interested make their own comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no thanks. Is that a threat or a promise? But what to call it then? "Ulster descent" would fit the Ulster Scots better anyway. Category:People of Northern Ireland descent, avoiding the dread "ish"? Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as a promise. If the idea of reopening a delicate compromise was on the table, then interested parties would need to know, and there are strong opinions on both sides.
"Ulster descent" is problematic because Ulster != Northern Ireland. But why change at all? In this sort of area, a phrase which avoids being the subject to allegations of partisanship is a valuable thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to
Occuli. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (or rename very slightly) -- there is a lot of political sensitivity here: you are rushing into a very sensitive area: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". Ulster Scots is an American/Canadian ethnicity, not in British use. Accusing a Catholic resident of Northern Ireland (probably Republican) of being an Ulsterman would probably be inflamatory, since it has a Unionist context. I would suggest we use "Northern Ireland" as an adjective or "Northern Irish" as a grammatically better adjective. I suspect that the degree of intermarriage between Ulstermen of English and Scottish ancestry is too great for that split to be useful. "Adams" (Sinn Fein leader) appears to have a Welsh surname, while some of the Unionist leaders have Irish surnames. This suggests to me a good deal of past intermarriage between Protestant (settler) and Irish (native) communities. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But, I'd rather merge to Category:People of Irish descent. England, Wales, and Scotland are well-defined, historic entities. "Northern Ireland" in this context didn't exist until 1921. What is clear to me, though, is that putting "Northern Irish" into categories is a can of worms I'd rather not have opened. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to Category:People of Irish descent opens its own can of worms, since many of those in N. Irl don't regard themselves as Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignore me, then. If keeping the status quo is the route of least controversy, then so be it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - On this rare occasion, I would prefer to ignore you. There are so many cans of worms here that an army could live on a diet of worms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please rename to something. "People descendant from Northern Ireland"? It sounds like they were dug out of the ground, like a potato. Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry is the best I can do so long as we're avoiding "Northern Irish". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GO, are you from down under? In Ireland, when something is dug of the ground it ascends, on account of some geospatial anomaly having placed the ground beneath our feet rather than over our heads ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a point here, though. The title as it stands certainly doesn't look like idiomatic English to me, if even grammatically correct. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Canadian, living in New Zealand. So yes, since I'm at your antipode my meaning evidently was the opposite of what was intended. No, what I meant was that it sounds like they are descended from the place called "Northern Ireland", as if the ground is their mother, as you might say a potato came from the earth. People are biologically descendant from other people, not places. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. I'm relisting here because there is a consensus against keeping this category in its current form, but no consensus as to what to do about it. Hopefully further discussion will settle on a solution. postdlf (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to live with the choice of the closing admin. Clearly a rename is needed so any of the proposals is probably better then what we have. If the rename is determined later to be wrong and a consensus develops for a different name, we can change it. But for now closers choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming, because no proposal has yet been made for an alternative name which avoids using the highly-contentious adjective "Northern Irish". The current name is ugly, but at least it is
neutral, and I have yet to see any alternative which retains that neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry has been suggested. It's not pretty either, but no more or less ugly than what exists now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I missed that one. It's OK, an if there is a consensus that it's an improvement, I have no objection to Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:People with Northern Ireland ancestry. I hope this will provide a means of dealing with the issue that "Ulster Scots" is an American ethnicity that is not (or no longer) a British one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2010 (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:Spanish football competitions

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Spanish football competitions as Category:Football competitions in Spain

Nominator's rationale: Current title suggest these competitions are exclusively competed for by Spanish teams only and that they are open to all Spanish teams. This is not true and is misleadiing. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per everything in
talk) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose per convention of Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country. I agree with the nominator that "Football (soccer) competitions in foo" would be a better name for all these categories, but I place a higher priority on consistency. If somebody wants to to do a group nomination for all 224 sub-categories of Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country, I'll support it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to this one, per convention. Like the brunette above, I agree with changing over the system, but they need to all be done, or none at all. If no one objects, I'll run up a group nomination this weekend? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not Spanish competitions. Common factor is that competitions are held in Spain and not that all entrants in these are Spanish. There is a subtle difference. Also what about per convention Category:Sports competitions in Spain. Djln--Djln (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The fact that a competition is Spanish does not mean that all its entrants are Spanish .. just as Gort is an Irish town, but not everyone who lives there is Irish. However, I agree that it's better to avoid adjectives for countries in categories such as this, to avoid any ambiguity ... just that there should be consistency in the parent category. So either rename them all, or rename none. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we are not talking about Irish towns we are talking about football competitions, can you please stick to point. I am in favour of renaming all such categories, but I really can't be bothered nominating all of them individdually Djln--Djln (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I'm sorry that you don't understand the point about the way that adjectives are generally problematic in category names. Anyway, the consensus is that either all the sub-cats of Category:Football (soccer) competitions by country are changed, or none of them is ... but that for consistency, this one won't be changed alone. So unless somebody bothers nominating all of them, they won't be changed. --11:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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:Vilhelm Dahlerup

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary eponymous category which consists of the related article about the architect Vilhelm Dahlerup, and 1 subcategory, his buildings. The subcategory can be upmerged into the parent categories. Cjc13 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as the nom says.
talk) 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, but why upmerge the child? Why not just let it exist as a sub-cat of Category:Buildings and structures by architect? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been added to parent cats so no need to upmerge. Cjc13 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2010 (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:Farpoint Media Podcasts

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. Main article has been deleted per AfD. Jafeluv (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category doesn't exist (is that a valid reason for CfD?) andyzweb (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would suggest a rename to the more general
talk) 10:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename per Occuli if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FarPoint Media Network closes as keep or no consensus. Delete if that AfD closes in deletion. In the meta-analysis, I'd support merging all three articles into one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for it. Arenlor (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that, no matter the AfD, on second look. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2010 (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:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman Award

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:

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 30. Jafeluv (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman Award to Category:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Award is just called "Kalidas Samman". Hekerui (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main article may just be called Kalidas Samman but that gives no information about what it is. Award at least identifies it as an award - better to leave things as they are. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Category:Recipients of the Padma Vibhushan, Category:Recipients of the Padma Bhushan, Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri Hekerui (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an other then national award is this notable enough to keep? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awarded by the government of a state of 60+ million people. Hekerui (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per
WP:OC#Award_recipients: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- already well listed in Kalidas Samman. We do not like award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (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.