Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 21

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Big Ten alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Why would we want to categorize all alumni of U.S. universities by what athletic conference the school currently belongs to? (1) It has minimal relevance to probably the majority of those in the alumni categories, and (2) the school memberships in athletic conferences change over time. Do we include every school that ever was part of the Big 10, which will then include all alumni of the school, regardless of whether or not the school was part of the Big 10 when that alumnus was attending? It's a mess of an idea, in my view. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is an trivial grouping, because as the nominator points out the athletic status of a university is unrelated to most of the alumni. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain This is a good grouping of some important institutions similiar to Category:Ivy League alumni. It can always be updated as changes occur. I think a "Category:Pac Ten alumni" could also be useful. --mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.166.68 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The term Ivy League owes its origins to sport, but its cultural usage now extends way beyond sport; the term is used generically as a reference to those universities. That is not the case with the Big Ten Conference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The term "

  Midwest. --mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.166.68 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Wikipedia is written for a global readership, not for a midwestern readership. Ivy League is used and understood even outside the USA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFF, and no, there is no point in grouping Ivy alumni together either.- choster (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete enough to group the colleges at one level, here Category:Big Ten Conference schools (why "schools"? - is that right?). Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In American English, any educational institution is a school and anyone enrolled at such an institution is a student.- choster (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The by conference is not a smart move. There are multiple major problems with it 1- we generally use the "if it once applied, categorize" rule. This either means we should categorize people in this category by whether when they were at the school it was part of the big 10, or we will have to exclude people who actually were athletes in Big-10 competitions because their university is no longer in that conference. 2- What do we do with Independent/in multiple conferences schools like Brigham Young University. Categorizing by college/university and grouping these by state works. This category is just a recipe for disaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added Category:University of Chicago alumni since the University of Chicago was in the Big 10. It was in the Big 10 for a lot more time than some of the universities currently listed here. I have also nominated the Ivy League alumni cat for deletion. However the recent expansion of the Big 10 shows that the term is not nearly as fixed as Ivy League and so the analogy fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• OK to include U. of Chicago The
  Big Ten in the past, but not the present. However, its past association qualifies it for inclusion. --mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.166.68 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I find this category helpful and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.54.37 (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — 137.28.54.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  See

  WP:ITSUSEFUL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete One graduates from a university, not its athletic conference nor any other association it may belong to. This scheme is completely backwards.- choster (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If there is a category for the Ivy League, than there should also be a Big Ten category. I find the Ivy League parochialism tiresome. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As stated by choster - One graduates from a university, not its athletic conference. Neutrality^talk 08:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this doesn't work at all.
  Oculi (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not meaningful when categorizing non-athletes. Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Pichpich. --KarlB (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Great category! As a Big Ten student, I find this category to be very handy. Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.240.8 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one does not have to graduate to be an alumni. That said, I really do not see how grouping these 13 schools together is very helpful. I would also say that if kept the current name is not what we want. Maybe Category:Alumni by Big Ten school would be better, so as to make it clear this is a container category. It just strikes me as an attempt to shout "hey, we are the best, better than you rubes who did not go to big ten schools". That is also my gripe with the ivy league category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Gad, it's spreading: [1], [2]. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the PAc-12 case illustrates why these are so bad. There are two universities that were once in the Pac-12 but no longer are. Then there are 5 more universities that are part of the Pac-12 for at most three sports (but not for football, which is what people pay the most attnetion to). This is just a plain bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It's a particularly problematic scheme for those conferences that have had variable membership over time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course everything changes over time, but this is a general group which is generally understood. As a way of characterizing universities with something in common, it is meaningful. I could try to define it, but I think everyone understands it: it's the archetype of sports-intensive public universities. There are of course others equally so dominated, and they need categories also. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the first reason noted by the nominator. The fact that a particular instituation is or was a member of the Big 10 Conference has little relevance for non-sports alumni. The Ivy League category is a separate case that should be evaluated on its own merits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DGG's "sports intensive public universities" (empahsis added) description of the Big 10 is false. Among the first 10 in the big 10, 2, specifically Northwestern University and the University of Chicago were not public. To this day, Northwestern University, a private university, is part of the Big 10. The fact that the "essence of the Big 10" does not fit all the included institutions, makes the attempted definition suspect. It becomes even more suspect when one realizes that there are schools that fit the "Big 10 Image" that are not part of it. For example, if we treaked it to be "large, mid-westerns (for a broad definition of mid-west that somehow includes Pennsylvania), top ranking universities", it is really hard to see how we would exclude the University of Notre Dame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Impossible to be an alumnus of an athletic conference. You can be a former competitor (or current, for that matter) in it, but alumni? No. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 27 May 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:ATTAC members to Category:Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is at Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action. Category:Members of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action might make more sense in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because having checked a sample of 5 articles in this category, I found that ATTAC was mentioned in only one of them -- if it's not even mentioned in the article, it's probably not a defining characteristic. However, if it is kept ... that's a hideous horrible mouthful of a name, but I agree that expansion of the acronym is needed. If kept, it should be renamed to "Members of Foo", to make it easier to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to deletion. It does seem somewhat peripheral on the articles I have looked at. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with renaming. I also added references to
  ATTAC in the articles corresponding to its founding members. --Fadesga (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the category seems to be too over used for trivial connections to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:38, 22 May 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:American art exhibitions to Category:Art exhibitions in the United States
• Category:Canadian art exhibitions to Category:Art exhibitions in Canada
• Category:German art exhibitions to Category:Art exhibitions in Germany
• Category:Italian art exhibitions to Category:Art exhibitions in Italy
• Category:Senegalese art exhibitions to Category:Art exhibitions in Senegal

Nominator's rationale: This is a contested

speedy renaming nomination. The by-country naming standard is X in/of Foo; these categories currently follow the by-nationality naming standard, Fooian X. Also, as noted in the original speedy nomination, the current titles are ambiguous. Category:Canadian art exhibitions, for example, could refer either to art exhibitions in Canada or exhibitions of Canadian art. There is at least one case, Face of Canada, which is both: an exhibit, located in Canada, of Canadian art. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

rename esp since this seems to be about exhibitions in the country, and not exhibitions of works from that country.--KarlB (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: the category names need disambiguation, and as they're used now, they support the requested disambiguation. Certainly a given exhibition may be "of Italian art" and "in Italy", but the latter is more inclusive of articles, and people looking for the former would be satisfied most of the time by the contents of the latter. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to avoid ambiguity, per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - about location, not origin, so an easy call. Neutrality^talk 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Zangar (talk) 07:55, 28 May 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: Delete - With no prejudice against immediately requesting subsequent RMs or CfDs concerning other seemingly-related articles or categories, as noted in the discussion below. - jc37 17:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose rename: Category:Nobility of the British Isles → Category:Nobility in the British Isles Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland Note to closing admin: Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland was created out-of-process during the course of this discussion, by the creator of the nominated categories, pre-empting any consensus formed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose rename: Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles → Category:Dukedoms in the British Isles Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain and Ireland

Nominator's rationale: The peerages are of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the UK — there is no peerage "of" the British Isles. --

talk) 19:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

:comment I'm neutral on this. The articles in the category say 'of', so if you're going to rename the cat, will you also rename the contained articles? Also, there is this cat which would need to be cleaned up too - perhaps you can nom at same time? Also I note that "of the british isles = 140 hits" whereas "in the British isles = 57 hits" so let's make sure we're being consistent.--KarlB (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it (that the articles in the category say "of") and, re-reading it a couple of time, I think they are OK. I think some things are going to be "of" the British Isles and somethings are going to be "in" the British Isles. I'm not sure what the exact measure would be but, to give an example in this case, "Nobility of the British Isles" doesn't make sense because the British Isles doesn't have have a peerage (singular). On the other hand, "List of xxx in the peerages of the British Isles" does make since as the British Isles has a group of historically connected peerages (plural). --

talk) 21:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's fine. I don't have strong feelings either way, so whatever preposition you think is best I will vote with you.--KarlB (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Once again we have a newly-created "British Isles" category, whose reason for existence seems unclear; it appears that one editor has decided to create "Foo in the British Isles" container categories for all values of "foo", regardless of whether the "British Isles" is a relevant unit in the study of "foo". In this case, it isn't relevant: there is a commonality of nobility between Britain and Ireland, but not with the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
  If kept, rename to "Foo in Britain and Ireland" to more accurately describe the geography and to avoid POV terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment plz note that the following have existed for a while:
  List of courtesy titles in the peerages of the British Isles etc., so the the nobility category was simply following an established scheme. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Rather than blindly following what some other wikipedia editors have created, it would be more relevant to have some explanation of why you think that the "British Isles" is a relevant concept when discussing a nobility whose scope is actually Britain and Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The assertion that the use of British Isles is POV is rather curious. It denotes a geographic entity, and it is much less a mouthful than the clunky alternative proposed.
• Oppose - Of would pertain to those in the nobility who at present do not reside in the British Isles, and is the correct terminology.Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So this category should only contain those "in the nobility who at present do not reside in the British Isles"? Interesting counter-proposal. It would however mean emptying out the category as the sub-cats and contents don't currently relate to those "in the nobility who at present do not reside in the British Isles". --

  talk) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Another makey-uppy grouping. If anything, it should be "United Kingdom and Ireland". Use country names, not geographic regions as this is the basis of nobility classes in any case. --
  HighKing (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  True enough, actually. Though I think "of Great Britain and Ireland" (the kingdoms involved) is more accurate. Possibly all of these (including the associated articles) should be renamed. --

  talk) 11:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree. In general, the name of the entity bestowing the honour should be used, whatever type of entity is happens to be. --

  HighKing (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I see sub cats to do with the Isle of Man and Sark were added last night by Karl.brown ([3], [4]). That seems rude at least while heated discussions are taking place on this and a related discussion below.

  I'm beginning to be won over to BHG's view of things, that "it appears that one editor has decided to create 'Foo in the British Isles' container categories for all values of 'foo', regardless of whether the 'British Isles' is a relevant unit in the study of 'foo'."

  Again, like BHG pointed out, I suggest all of the articles and categories be renamed as "of Great Britain and Ireland" for the reasons above. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann have EITHER distinct peerages OR are a part of the peerage(s) of Great Britain and Ireland. --

  talk) 13:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• strong oppose RA seems for some reason to think it is rude to improve the encyclopedia; it is common practice to add relevant items to categories under discussion, which helps in the appreciation of their full scope. If you want a category just for Great Britain/Ireland nobility, that's fine, and then this category can remain as a container category for the British isles which captures our friends in the channel islands. This is essentially a container category, like Category:Nobility of the Americas; Category:Nobility of the Papal States; Category:Nobility of the Crusader states; Category:European nobility; Category:Baltic nobility; Category:Oceanian nobility; etc. It's scope is quite clear. I should note however that Category:Nobility_of_the_United_Kingdom already exists; perhaps Ireland could be added there, and that category renamed (Ireland is already under the 'peers'). But in any case, just because there is cleaning up to do at a lower level, doesn't mean that this category has no merit. --KarlB (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment Also, I note that the new proposed rename is rather silly: Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain and Ireland which would thus contain, logically: Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain, Category:Dukedoms of Ireland, but also Category:Dukedoms of England, Category:Dukedoms of Scotland; Category:Dukedoms of the United Kingdom - this is likely to cause a fair amount of confusion, between the use of Great Britain and Ireland as geographic entities, and Great Britain and Ireland as descriptions of peerages (and indeed, RA proposes that Great Britain and Ireland be used as "(the kingdoms involved)"; BHG suggest it should be the geography - thus even the editors proposing this change aren't in agreement - does Ireland represent a kingdom, a peerage, an island, or what? I note that other categories in this tree, like Category:British earls just use the simple British to capture everything (including earldoms of Scotland dating from the 11th century) - I myself didn't propose calling this Category:British nobility as I was afraid of the wrath of certain editors. In any case, this is why, again in this case, the much-beloved/much-reviled British Isles steps in to do a useful, but tough duty - to serve as a neutral geographic container for items which themselves have all sorts of naming complications. We should be sure to separate the debate about the 'name' of this container (which some people don't like), from whether such a container should exist at all, but unfortunately those proposing deletion have muddied the waters and its quite unclear which one they're disputing. --KarlB (talk)

  The issue of whether the category should exist, and if so under what name, are inextricably interlinked. The "British Isles" is a contested piece of terminology, which wikipedia has chosen to use for a set of islands, not all of which are British. It should therefore be used sparingly, and only where that is the relevant geographic context.

  In this case, as in some others, the relevant geographic context is Britain and Ireland, not the wider area of the so-called "British Isles". KarlB's attempt to claim that I disagree with RA s either mistaken or mischievious, because we are both saying the same thing in different ways. RA and I agree that the relevant geographical area is that of the kingdoms involved, which had at one point a united peerage. The Channel Islands are not part of those kingdoms; they are ruled by the Duke of Normandy, not by the monarch of the UK. Those two titles have been held by the same person for 800 years, but they are not the same function, and the islands are not part of the kingdom.

  As noted below in response to DGG, I query whether any container category is needed. The main effect of these catehgories is imply to add an un-needed layer of navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categories should follow the peerages, and the country names of them.
  talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment more evidence of use - encyclopedia Brittanica, describing the most important book in this space: "The Complete Peerage, in full The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom Extant Extinct or Dormant, exhaustive 14-volume (in 15 books) guide to the peerage families (titled aristocracy) of the British Isles, recognized as the greatest British achievement in the field of genealogy. The first edition in eight volumes was published in London (1887–98) by George Edward Cokayne, Clarenceux King of Arms. The second edition, revised and much enlarged by a series of editors, was issued in 13 volumes from 1910 to 1959, with one final volume published in 1998 to include in the series the ...". Thus we should keep as a useful container category, already named correctly - as Snappy points out, and I agree, the sub-categories should follow peerages; this is a container category, and doesn't need to follow the same rules. Unless you are suggesting that Europe and Baltic are somehow a country names? Suggest rename of the subcats, if that is needed. --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It is common for historic documents to use "British Isles", but not accurate in today's definition as it was used to mean "British and Ireland" or "United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland" - just as the title of the volumes you've quoted does. In fact, using your own logic, that's just another confirmation of why your category is makey-upey and should be deleted. --
  HighKing (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment I think I understand now, reading the above, what might be happening here. I believe that those proposing deletion or renaming think that the scope of these categories is
  Seigneurs of Sark. Why people are so against this category surprises me, but it is perhaps because they misunderstood the intent; I have updated the description to make it more clear hopefully.--KarlB (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think you actually haven't grasped anything at all. There's no basis for this grouping, it makes no logical sense.--
  HighKing (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks, but I respectfully disagree. It's not about 'grasping', it's about worldview. You have a particular view of the world; in your view of the world, such a category makes no sense. In my view of the world, it does. Why? Well, a thousand years of history is why. You seem to feel like the cat should be "Nobility of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" - which is a fine and reasonable category - but what about Sark? Or the Gaelic nobility? Or scottish kings? You agree these things exist; I assume you agree they wouldn't fit in "Nobility of United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland"; but why do you resist grouping them together in general? The history of these isles is so rich, and the traditions of nobility are so diverse, what is the harm in having a container category that brings together the various strains of nobility? I don't see you arguing against the logic of Category:Nobility of the Crusader states, but when you take an archipelago with such a long and rich history, in which nobles often played an important role, to limit the category to *just* certain nobles from the most dominant strains, and leave the others (like our poor friends in Sark, or the old Irish Kings) behind is rather silly. --KarlB (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighKing that this is about grasping what's at issue here. This is not about worldview, unless ignorance f history is a relevant worldview; it is about the fact that the Lords of Sark and Man and so on have nothing to with the peerage systems of Britain and Ireland.

For example, there are no dukedoms in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, and if you understood the history then you would understand why. There is no basis for creating a ducal category to include those islands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a appropriate general category. To someone outside the area, if one is told that a certain person was the Duke of X, the general reader will be by no means sure of which of the possible countries he may have been a duke. the distinction between nobility of England and nobility of Scotland is very clear to me now, but it certainly wan't clear to me as an american teen-ager--much less of anyone from another culture area altogether. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG's rationale is flawed, and he appears not have done any research into the existing category structure. If you want to look up "Duke of X", put it in the search box, and you will in nearly all cases find an article.

  OTOH, if you want to find browse around Dukes, go to Category:Dukes and thence to Category:Dukedoms, where you will find the various dukedoms grouped by country. Or rather, you would have found them all, until somebody grouped a bunch of categories under Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles. This category has added an extra layer of navigation, and broken up Category:Dukedoms -- so it impedes the navigation which DGG sought.

  As noted above, it doesn't just add an un-needed layer of navigation; also adds a POV term which is inaccurate, because the "British Isles" has never had a unified peerage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BHGs disdain for the word 'British Isles' (note she always calls it POV - ok, we get it, no need to repeat yourself) has turned her often impeccable logic into steaming pile of babble. Here BHG critiques extra layers of navigation... oh... wait --> Category:Halls of fame in Ireland??? The extra layers of navigation present all over the ireland tree are no problem for her, because all of *those* promote the idea of a unified ireland.

That BHG is now railing *against* actually useful categories as impeding navigation is, well, beyond silly. What's the word for that? Ignorant? Also these requirements of unified peerage are ridiculous. Is Category:Chinese nobility a unified peerage? There were many kingdoms in China. What about Category:Egyptian nobility. and so on - if you dig a little further, you will usually find that many of these Nobility categories end up as geographic categories; in many cases a unified peerage that can be traced, but often it's a collection of different titles that all happened to end up in the same Westphalian nation state, many years later (see Category:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_nobility. BHG even brings in some revisionist history right here: "Or rather, you would have found them all, until somebody grouped a bunch of categories under Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles." BHG unfortunately didn't look at the history; these dukedom categories were all created at the same time by the same person; therefore, it has *never* been possible to browse Category:Dukedoms of Ireland directly, so she's dreaming of a time that never was. BHG's history above about the Duke of Normandy is a fascinating, but pedantic point. The channel islands are crown possessions, and the crown has held them for a very long time. So, to put them in a category with the other British peers is eminently practical, especially for researchers who are not blinded by hatred of the word "british isles". As I've said before, the purpose of both of these categories (I only created one) was to serve as a geographic container category, not to make some sort of statement about unified peerages - no different than Category:Asian nobility. If you want to create a sub-category just for the unified British peerages, please go ahead - but we will still find a container for the isles useful. --KarlB (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And why, if you were only told that "a certain person was the Duke of X", would you presume their dukedom was in the British Isles? If you were told a certian person was the Duke of Courland, for example, you wont find them in this category becuse Courland is in

  talk) 11:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Rather intersting to see that an editor who was busy a week or 2 back complaining about the wikiquette of others is calling my logic a "steaming pile of babble" and "ignorant". Very

WP:CIVIL

, that is.

As you know

WP:ITSUSEFUL

is not an appropriate rationale.

The situation with the Ireland categories is crucially different, because a) for most of the last 5 centuries, Ireland has been a unified political entity mostly under foreign rule, but as a unified unit of governance, b) The word "Ireland" is ambiguous, referring both the island of Ireland and to the independent state which occupies 5/6 of the island. One of the reasons I support having all-Ireland categories as containers is to distinguish those two uses of the term ... and supporting the use of an explicit "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" category I mightily piss off those who don't like that term and prefer to retain only the ambiguous Foo-in-Ireland categories. Far from "promoting the idea of a unified ireland" as alleged, I am trying to document that fact that Ireland has often been united and is now now divided, and to retain a category structure which recognises both of those facts.

Now that i have replied to the abuse, let's go back to the substance, which is quite simple. here is not such a thing as a "nobility of the British Isles", but there is such a thing as the nobility of Nritain and ireland. KarlB is trying to expand the scope of the topic by bringing in irrelevant territories, for what purpose? Solely, AFAICS, to allow the use of the inaccurate and POV terem "British Isles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment if we really want to be precise, we can create a subcategory: Category:Nobility in the Peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. If no-one objects, I will do so shortly. Then, the British Isles category can be used to capture nobility that is *not* in those peerages. Any opposition to this idea? Or, if you think it should be based on a geographic area, we could just do Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland. But do note, that Category:Irish nobles doesn't really fit in there; there are old Gaelic nobles in there who wouldn't necessarily play nicely with their British peers.--KarlB (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. Please do at least try to stop being silly.

  "England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom" is entirely synonymous with the more concise "Britain and Ireland", a geographic term whose scope is limited to the relevant geographic area and which includes the scope of the relevant kingdoms (the various Irish kinngdoms as well as those based in the island of Britain). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great point, and glad to see we're in agreement. I'm sorry about the tone above which was not ideal, but as they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen (I note that *you* implied I was ignorant first, so, I'd suggest watching your own language, you know, glass houses and rocks and all that). Anyway, since we agree these categories should be based on the relevant geographic area, we're in perfect agreement - we will create sub-cats for Great Britain and Ireland, then anything which doesnt fit, can go here. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

WP:POINT

disruption.

I also object strongly to comment on your tautological naming proposal being taken as consent for the creation of a category by that name. The fact that I pointed out the silliness of your name does not mean that I agree that the category should be created under any name, nor does it mean that that it is appropriate for you to try to pre-empt the formation of a wider consensus. I am still not persuadecd that there is any need for an umberlla category here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to help move things along. I agree with the points made above; if the consensus is to merge, there is no harm done. Otherwise, both cats can continue to exist. But hopefully, the sorting of this category will help clarify what is at stake here - is it useful to have a container that has the nobility of channel islands along side that of Great Britain and Ireland (which many editors above have argued should be together). If so, what should that container be named?--KarlB (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, on Wikipedia we make decisions by

disruptive. Please revert your creation of that category, and let a neutral closing admin weigh the consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• comment I've just looked again at Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles; it seems to have been created a year or so back as a container category for English/Irish/Scottish/etc dukedoms; however there is the famous Duke of Normandy which is not really part of those other dukedoms, even though the British monarch currently holds that title. So, even if we were to create Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain and Ireland, the duke of Normandy technically couldn't be within; its a historical oddity, of course, so maybe not a big deal; in any case, I didn't create the dukes category, so if the consensus is to rename it dukes category, I would agree. As for the nobility though, now that I've moved the British/Irish/etc nobles to a sub-category Category:Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland (which can of course be renamed per continued discussion here), we still have some stragglers, e.g. the crown dependencies titles (like Category:Seigneurs of Sark, which shows what Category:Nobility of the British Isles (or renamed as Category:Nobility in the British Isles) could now contain. For now I've left Category:Royalty in the British Isles where it was rather than diffusing to the sub-cat, because it has Category:Monarchs of the Isle of Man within it; but I suppose one could eventually create a sub-category Category:Royalty of Great Britain and Ireland and place all of the royals except the Manx in there (then I suppose one would also have to create Category:Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland to sit under Category:Monarchs in the British Isles if the approach is to nest these categories thusly. --KarlB (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, either you really do not understand consensus decision-making, or you have contempt for it. Your actions have made most of this discussion irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another pointless and totally made up (OR?) category. Bjmullan (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment If there is a move to rename to capture the British/Irish kingdoms, as suggested by several editors above, the following might be one possible outcome:

Nobility in the British Isles
--Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland
--Nobile titles of the Isle of Man
--Seigneurs of Sark
--Seigneurs of Samares
--Royalty in the British Isles
----Monarchs in the British Isles
-------Monarchs of the Isle of Man
-------Monarchs in Great Britain and Ireland
----------Irish Kings
----------English Monarchs (etc)
----Royalty of Great Britain and Ireland
-------Anglo-Saxon Royalty
-------Royalty in Great Britain (etc)
-------Monarchs in Great Britain and Ireland
----------Irish Kings
----------English Monarchs (etc)

• "Great Britain and Ireland" is a poor choice for a category name in this context, because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a country which existed from 1801 until renamed in 1927 to reflect territorial changes in 1922. If there was a consensus to have some sort of umbrella category covering the history of nobility in those two islands, it should be called "Britain and Ireland", to reflect the fact that it includes all the states which have existed in the 2 islands.

  However, the creation of umbrella categories such as these is of little help to navigation, and creates all sorts of problems wrt to anachronisms, scope, and neutrality of naming. They are best avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Category:Royalty in the British Isles and Category:Monarchs of the British Isles should also be deleted?? Also you didn't answer the other question, which is what do we do with the crown dependencies? I actually think a more logical arrangement would be by peerage; in other words, grouping all of the peers of England/Ireland/Scotland/Great Britain/UK/etc together, because this is how the books do it, then separately, the old Scottish lairds/kings/barons, etc (e.g. any which didn't become peers) along with the Gaelic nobility, and the Manx/Channel islands folk. That way, you have a set of nobility that captures the succession of kingdoms, then everything else. Another way is to mix them all together, at which point you need to choose the largest geographic unit that captures all of them; in this case it happens to be British isles which has the lovely feature that it doesn't cause a namespace collision with any of the peerages or other kingdoms, which allows it to be a neutral container.--KarlB (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Britain and Ireland" does not cause a namespace collision, so there is no need to expand the scope just to introduce your much-loved term "British Isles".

The crown dependencies can be either a) categorised under the country whose crown they are a dependent of, or b) left as standalone categs under Europe, since their noble titles have little connection with the UK.

As to the monarchy cats, we are better off leaving that for another day, cos this discussion is far too long already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a rather strange notion of the meaning of the term little connection. I'm not going to bore you with history, lest I be accused of wikispamming, so I'll just leave you to go do a bit of research on how and whether the noble titles and Kings of the crown dependencies have much if anything to do with Britain and Ireland... --KarlB (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote: "their noble titles have little connection with the UK". I presume that your smug remark refers either to the Lord of Mann, which is an office rather than a rank of nobility, or to the King of Mann and his predecessors; Kings are monarchs, not nobility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep researching. It will come to you. I'm no longer in the mood to educate you. :(--KarlB (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a relevant fact, then present it, but don't waste editors time with silly guessing-games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the point of this category. Currently under

talk) 20:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks, I think this is the heart of the issue. Is there any value in bringing together the nobility of Ireland (ancient and otherwise), Scotland, UK, and the crown dependencies. This has been already done for monarchs and royalty, so the question is, is it worth doing for nobles, and if not, why not? I think due to the long intertwined history of these isles, the answer is yes. If you have some reason why you think it isn't worthwhile (for example, some evidence that the Kings of Mann had nothing to do with the Kings of Ireland), then please share it. We allow so many other groupings of nobility (see Category:Baltic nobility), I'd really like you to ask yourself an honest question - if this category was called Category:Nobility of the Atlantic archipelago or Category:British-Irish nobility (in line with the British-Irish council) would you thus accept its existence? How much of your opposition is due to the term, and how much is due to the concept? --KarlB (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the concept. Denmark, Norway and Sweden spent long parts of their history together in various unions yet there in no Scandinavian nobility category. They all have a separate entry in the parent category.

talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Great. So, now we can have an interesting discussion. Actually Scandinavian nobility might be another good category to create (we already have Category:Baltic nobility as pointed out before. In any case, it seems from the above that people agree to bring together the peerage of Ireland/Scotland/UK/Britain/etc - I think that was the point some where making above - based on some continuity. But many other country categories are based on assigning nobility, post-facto, to the nation-state in which they find themselves (e.g. Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina nobility. So the question is in the British Isles, what about the other nobility? Should we have 'pre-UK scottish nobility' as a category, at the level of Category:European nobility? ditto with the crown dependencies, which some people (like myself) find strange is not associated somehow with British nobility...--KarlB (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One again, you are trying to misrepresent the position of others. I see only one or 2 editors who "agree to bring together the peerage of Ireland/Scotland/UK/Britain/etc"; my own view is that if they are to be linked, it should be under "Britain and Ireland", but I see no need for any umbrella category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility of the British Isles (cont'd)

A definite concern I have is bundling political orders and various nobilities together without much respect for the topic itself. "British Isles" is a geographic continer. Whereas with respect to the "politics of the British Isles" discussion below there is a limited degree to which there is a politics of the British Isles. In contrast, there is no nobility of the British Isles. Instead, there are various unrelated lines and orders (e.g. the Gaelic order, the British order, Norman lines, etc.) within that geographic space.

While it is fair IMO is to place sub-categories for each of these orders within a container for navigational purposes. But it is inappropriate IMO to mix them. That is something that happens not only in categories but also, to a degree, in the article space also. However, at least in the article space there is scope to explain that these are different orders. It is also something that happens across other categories of this sort (not just this one). However, that is no reason to replicate the error here. --

talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks RA. I guess the question is, why are you opposed to the umbrella? You are right, there is no single "nobility of the British Isles", but there's also no contiguous "Nobility of China", or for that matter, a contiguous nobility for almost any of the other westphalian nation states I've pointed out above (Bosnia-Herzegovina?). Remember the borders of most nation states are only a few hundred years old;the common practice in wikipedia is gathering of all of the nobility that happened to be within the borders of that nation-state. In this case, I guess I am also claiming a bit of British exceptionalism; this is an archipelago which has had an incredibly close and complex history, as has been pointed out before, for 400 years they were under *the same sovereign*, and all of those 'unrelated' orders that you point out above are so intertwined it would be difficult to separate them! Do you really think that the Gaelic order has no bearing on Peerage of Ireland? One useful thing might be to look at the graph here History_of_the_British_Isles#Timeline_history_of_the_British_Isles and imagine coloring in all of those kingdoms; what you guys seem to be saying is that a category capturing *some* of those kingdoms is acceptable, but a category capturing nobility from *all* of those kingdoms is not. I really want you all to ask yourself a serious question - is your opposition *really* about the so-called logic of this container, which is clearly defensible as a geographic grouping, or it it *really* about removal of the word "British isles"; see below for the recent renaming by BHG, of lists that have been around since 2006! -- but suddenly, BHG has the urge to rename them - even before this discussion is finished! To me, that suggests that there is a *lot* more going on here than the logic of the category - it smells suspiciously like POV-pushing.

I would love it we could focus solely on the logic of the category, and for me, I don't see why putting UK Nobility next to Irish nobility and Manx nobility and Sark nobility is such a bad idea; I mean, after all, it's what we do in dozens of other categories about nobility. Look at this one for example Cotter_family - an ancient Irish family; they eventually joined the peerage as the Cotter Baronetcy, but they have 700 years of history before then. Don't even get me started on the Crown dependencies, which have a relationship with the crown dating back at least 1000 years, and Seigneurs of Sark would have been in the court with the King alongside all of the other nobles. The one difference in this case is, and the *only* reason we're even having this debate, is that for the past X years, 5/6 of Ireland has been an independent nation-state, but that does *not* change the history, and has little bearing on what happened in the past (see Retrocausality for why).--KarlB (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that we having this debate is that KarlB does not understand many of the basic issues involved, but has not allowed his unfamiliarity with the subject matter to deter him from creating controversial categories and defending them with extarordinary verbosity.

The latest example of his ignorance of the basics of the topic is this reference to the Cotter_family, who he describes as "having joined the peerage". Wrong: a Baronetcy is not a form of peerage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic; they're under Category:Irish noble families Here's another example that ended up as earls if you like: Mac Eoin Bissett family. Whether they are lords or peers or nobles or baronets is not really the key point here; in fact it would be reasonable I think to rename the category Nobility and Gentry of the British Isles, since the landed gentry played such an important role in the history of the region (many books on the British peerage are called 'Peerage and Baronetcy' simply because it has been found useful to group them together.)--KarlB (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, this is not pedantry. We are dealing here with verifiable facts, upon which interpretations are built. Please learn the difference between peerage and gentry, and before you propose yet another variant on the existing category system, look at how baronets are categorised elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin BHG made a big stink yesterday about my creation of a sub-category called "Nobility of Great Britain and Ireland", because she felt it impeded consensus formation. Today, she removed Category:Lairds from the category in discussion, and renamed 6 different pages that had 'British Isles' in their title - all in a bid to win this argument. She can't have it both ways. Either modifications to the category and contested names are allowed (and creation of relevant subcategories, and removal/adding to the category), or they are not. Given that I reversed my previous category creation, I'd ask here that BHG reverse this most recent rename of lists, because they were renamed to a title which she herself is promoting for this topic (i.e. Britain and Ireland) but which has not been agreed yet by consensus in this CfD. I would do it myself but as a non-admin, I can't.--KarlB (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved those articles to titles which reflected their actual scope, which in every case relates solely to Britain and Ireland, and not to the wider area which may be called the British Isles. Their names do not affect the naming of these categories, and is in no way an attempt to alter the outcome of this discussion.

  If you disagree with the new names, you are welcome to revert the moves, in which case I will open an RM discussion; or you may open an RM discussion yourself.

  As to the Category:Lairds, they are not nobility. They are gentry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  a) I can't revert the moves; b) BHG, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I'd like you to step outside of your POV for just a moment and imagine the following scenario: during a heated debate about a particular category, I go in and unilaterally change 6 article titles from "X in Britain and Ireland" to "X in the British Isles" - even if those articles had been named the old way for 6 years. What would you do? I'm pretty positive that you would call in air strikes, invoke admin actions, bring in the infantry, and call Jimbo himself. Just revert them until the discussion is over - it's the honorable thing to do. 'Britain and Ireland' is not a very good name either, FWIW, but I don't want to go into it here. They've been at 'British Isles' for a long time, and if you want to rename, wait till this CfD is over. Again, ask yourself the question, if the situation was reversed, would you just let it pass?

  Your claim that "Their names do not affect the naming of these categories, and is in no way an attempt to alter the outcome of this discussion" is, frankly, ridiculous, and I seriously doubt anyone but yourself would believe it. Would you care to hazard a poll?--KarlB (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, do calm down, and please trim your verbosity. As above, the scope of those articles is limited to the islands Britain and Ireland, and I renamed them per

  WP:PRECISION to a more precise title with the same word count and only 2 more characters. If for some reason you want to argue the case for keeping them at a less precise title, then you may follow the options I suggested above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

  )

  Whatever. Try to look yourself in the mirror, and say "If Karl renamed 6 articles with 'British Isles'", I would just let it slide. Note how you didn't answer the question, because you know the response.--KarlB (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yawn. I'm not playing your game, Karl. If you disagree with the moves, the paths to resolution are set out above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In view of all of the above, I will be brief: delete. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - me too. I do wish people would be concise.
  Oculi (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• compromise proposal Perhaps the following would be a satisfactory result:
  1. Create new sub-category Category:Nobility in the peerage of Britain and Ireland - these two cats would *only* focus on peers
  2. Create new sub-category to Category:Dukedoms in the peerage of Britain and Ireland
  3. Rename Category:Nobility of the British Isles to Category:Nobility in the Atlantic archipelago - in order to fairly capture Seigneurs of Sark, Barons and Lords of Man, as well as ancient Irish kings and other nobility who are not part of the peerage, but which are nonetheless important historical figures. --KarlB (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rename Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles to Category:Dukedoms in the Atlantic archipelago - in order to fairly capture all the dukedoms in the isles, such as the Duke of Normandy and possibly others. This last one I'm less convinced of the need for, but wanted to suggest anyway.--KarlB (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration of POV on wikipedia

Many of those pushing for "Britain and Ireland" as a solution here seem to forget a few facts:

1. the Channel Islands and Isle of Man persist in their existence, including the existence of nobles from their shores
2. The somewhat unified peerage system of the UK is already captured already under Category:Peers of the United Kingdom and related cats.
3. However, many of the ancient Irish nobility were converted to British peers
4. The Lords and Barons of Mann, and the Seigneurs of Sark (a title granted by the queen), always had special relationships to the crown (the Seigneurs of Sark are one of the last vestiges of the feudal system in the British holdings), so claims that these groups were totally unconnected are sadly false and rather ignorant of history (for a fascinating (but long) exposition on the complex legal relationship of the seigneurs of the channel islands with the british crown, see [5])

In any case, overall I find it really sad that wikipedia processes are not robust enough to resist the clearly POV attacks against a totally reasonable geographic category for nobility in a group of countries which have a completely intertwined history; they are certainly more closely linked than the nobility of the americas, and indeed even the nobility of the crusader states (which were spread across Europe) in time and space. As should be obvious from the above, we don't normally require any coherence for a geographic category - even for country categories, which can include any nobles from any time period. But this category has to go through a trial-by-fire to ever have a chance of surviving! It seems the word 'British Isles' is so distasteful to some that they feel the category must be deleted on sight, and every excuse in the book is trotted out to ensure the deletion of this category, as well as some tricks, like mass-renaming of articles present in this category from British Isles -> Britain and Ireland [6];[7];[8];[9];[10];[11]; or nomination for deletion of a (unique and rare) Baronness from the Isle of Man: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baroness_of_Douglas. All of this over one little category. --KarlB (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, that's just more verbose repetition. Per

WP:TPG

, please be concise and stop repeating yourself.

I find it very sad that you continue to refuse to

assume good faith

in all the editors who repeatedly set out a rationale for why the term "British Isles" is loaded and POV, and why the use of this framing is not simply a matter of adopting a neutral geographic framework. Your allegation is effectively that editors who oppose the use a POV framing and POV terminology are thereby pushing a POV of their own. That is a self-defeating argument, because it makes the whole concept of POV/NPOV unworkable.

As to the rest of, it please drop the hysterical allegations of dirty tricks, and your

WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. If you object to the renaming of those articles, then please use the usual mechanisms to discuss appropriate titles; I look forward to your explanation of which Viscountcies and Marquessates in the islands are not part of the peerages of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Calling British Isles POV is a POV. If the term British isles was actually in violation of wikipedia's core policy of NPOV, then we would not have dozens of categories and articles which (appropriately) use that term.--KarlB (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, plenty of independent reliable sources demonstrate the non-neutrality of "British Isles", including those listed in refs 3-7 of

British Isles naming dispute

. Yet you still pursue the self-contradictory allegation that editors who point to the lack of neutrality of the term are therefore pushing a POV.

Thank you for confirming my point. If it is POV to point to suggest that something fails NPOV, then no editor can ever argue for NPOV. (If we followed your logic, then an objection that "Referring to Barack Obama as muslim socialist is POV" would of itself be blatant POV-pushing).

As Pocock noted, "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." (Pocock, J.G.A. [1974] (2005). "British History: A plea for a new subject". The Discovery of Islands). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I remain open to any suggestions you have to rename, that maintain the scope. (though Nobility of the British Isles has hits in google books [12]) --KarlB (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on procedure

It's a great pity that Karl continues to take a verbose

It is also unfortunate that Karl has consistently failed to assume good faith in those editors who offer reasoned objections both to the use of the term "British Isles" as POV, and to the use of a contested geographical term as the framing for geopolitical categorisation.

I remind editors of the existence of

I welcome, as always, a discussion on a rename, that captures the scope of the category, and I've even proposed one above. Unfortunately, Britain/Ireland leaves out our friends in the channel islands/Isle of Man. --KarlB (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you welcome a discussion, read

WP:TPG and stop disrupting the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 3 June 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Family Guy episodes with live action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per

WP:SMALLCAT. This is over-specific and since Family Guy is an animation series, it's unlikely that there will ever be more than a handful of episodes that fit in this category. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. And how exactly would this information even be helpful to know? Seems like pure trivia, or fancruft. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial association and not useful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I like that talking dog. No wait, the other thing - delete per OVERCAT. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as over categorization. --
  talk) 23:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As per nomination. Bjmullan (talk) 17:01, 24 May 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 delete (

criterion G7: author requests deletion). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Department stores in Saint Petersburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Created this but realized it was excessive categorization. Keizers (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete but why not put this for speedy delete? no need to come here for that. --KarlB (talk) 16:51, 21 May 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 delete (

Version 1.0 Editorial Team or WikiProject Yorkshire. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:D-Class Yorkshire articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:WikiProject Yorkshire does not support a D-class article rating. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 21 May 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 delete (

criterion G7: single author who requests deletion). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Department stores in Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Accidentally created duplicate category (there already exists Category:Department stores of Russia). Keizers (talk) 15:23, 21 May 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: Delete. The sole article is already in Category:US Airways. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:MetroJet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to

MetroJet was a small operation that lasted only three years; related articles can be placed directly in the US Airways cat.- choster (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) - choster (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – there's no point in having a category with just one page in it. The page that's in this category should be added to Category:US Airways, since MetroJet, in its few years of existence, was a subsidiary of US Airways. —Compdude¹²³ 04:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ditto above. Richardc020 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Noregs Mållag members to Category:Noregs Mållag leaders

Nominator's rationale: It's meaningless to have a category for members of an organization. This category currently lists leaders, though, and should continue to do so, but then under the proposed new name. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative oppose. I'm not sure I quite understand Geschichte's argument. I don't see why having a category for members of an organization is intrinsically "meaningless". Whether or not to have either a category for members, or for leaders, would appear to me in each case to be a question of judgment. __
  talk) 10:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nominator. People may be members of many different organisations, but membership alone is rarely a defining characteristic. Leadership of an organisation usually is defining, so the category should be renamed to reflect its actual contents and to avoid the category filling up with people whose involvement was limited to the payment of a membership fee. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. in this case, the org had up to 12,000 members, so membership is likely not defining; renaming to leaders makes sense.--KarlB (talk) 15:22, 21 May 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: Varied - Before anything else, I want to remind everyone that

consensus is not a vote. If it was, these all would have been deleted. but there were some fairly decent arguments from all sides on this. I also took into account both the discussions and the closures of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:Politics_by_continent_subcategories and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_17#Politics_in_the_British_Isles

.

• No consensus to delete Category:Politics of the British Isles
• Delete/Upmerge Category:Political parties in the British Isles
• Rename Category:Political movements of the British Isles to Category:Political movements in the British Isles (change of to in)

The keen point which seems to have consensus is that (for our purposes here) "the British Isles" should be considered a geographic name not a political one.

Incidentally, I had to read a LOT for this close, including a lot of related articles, off-site links, and even the contributions history of the categories' creator. (Those commenting in the various discussions had a LOT of links which they felt proved their points.) I don't mind. Supporting one's arguement is a good thing. And positive debate is healthy. But unfortunately, all too often what I read below was neither "positive" nor "healthy". I hope that editors find more positive ways to express their opinions (and differences of opinion) in the future. - jc37 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has begun creating a number of "XXX of the British Isles" to do with politics. Naturally, any time the term "British Isles" is used in connection with politics, hairs raise. I'm suggesting they all be deleted. There are of course many reasons to do so. For convenience, I will limit my rationale here to simply stating that we do not have "politics of" categories for other similar "regions" (and if we are to start doing so, let's start somewhere else).

• Category:Politics of the British Isles
• Category:Political parties in the British Isles
• Category:Political movements of the British Isles
• Category:Nobility of the British Isles

Most of the contents of these are simply holding categories for already-existing cats. Individual pages can be, and are already, categorised elsewhere (e.g. Category:Ireland–United Kingdom relations or Category:Politics of Europe).

Suggest delete all. --

• Keep To my surprise, I found the political ones rather useful; they bring together sub-cats for Ireland, the UK, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, all of which have their own political parties etc. In these cases (not so sure about the nobility) the category seems useful and valid - the various entries, especially for the small islands, would all get lost in the vast Category:Politics of Europe. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But why the British Isles alone ... and nowhere else? Should we "bring together" sub-cats for Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands (Category:Politics of Benelux)? What about Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland (Category:Politics of Scandinavia)? Should we "bring together" Finland with Category:Politics of Scandinavia or Category:Politics of the Baltics? What about the Balkans (Category:Politics of the Balkans)? Or Ibera (Category:Politics of Iberia)? Who else should we we "bring together"? And why? Why should we "bring together" the British Isles when we don't "bring together" anyone else?

  I also fail to see how Category:Politics of the Isle of Man would be more lost in Category:Politics of Europe than, say, Category:Politics of France.

  "...all of which have their own political parties..." You do know these are different countries, right? --

  talk) 11:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

None of them speak the same language, & form a cultural as well as geographic unit. There might be a case for Benelux categories. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no one would call the Isle of Man (a self-governing Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom) or Channel Islands "countries" in most senses, but they are distinct territories. They are not sovereign states, unlike Ireland. Also I know how to spell Iberia. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a subjective measure based on perspectives on culture? And not actually related to politics (or even merely "region")? Eeek!

On your off-topic remarks: I don't recall (nor see where) I called the Isle of Man a "country". You expressed surprise that different political parties existed in (among other places) the UK and Ireland. I asked you if you knew these were different countries. However, no less, for the purpose of categorisation, the Isle of Man (and well as Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney i.e. the Channel Islands) is to be found in Category:Politics by country. That seems sensible to me. Finally, I'm pleased you can spell Iberia. I can also (see the category link). This is the internet. Typos happen.

--

talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong delete all. The so-called "
  hotly-contested label for a geographical concept whose politics has little commonality. The politics of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands has little or no relation to the politics of Ireland, so the attempt to group them together seems even less coherent than a Category:Politics of Benelux; and while the politics of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands is strongly influenced by their relationship with the UK, the converse is not true -- UK politics pays scant attention to those outlying islands.
  The other unfortunate consequence of these categories is to place Irish politics as some sort of subset of something British, which simply does not reflect the reality of Irish politics over the last century. Whatever the intention of the category creator, the effect of these categories is to promote the view that Ireland is some sort of dissident member of a British family. The category system should not be used to promote a POV in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "hotly-contested label for a geographical concept whose politics has little commonality" - in response to this one, which is, as they say, a classic, I would only quote BHG in return: "but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions." The claim that the countries of the British Isles have little commonality, especially given movements for nationalism and/or unionism in almost all of them, and their long and complex history, is, as BHG is fond of saying, "silly"; but if someone has evidence that shows that, in spite of the existence of something like

  British-Irish Council or Common Travel Area, and historically shared Monarchs of the British Isles (See also Category:Monarchs in the British Isles), there is little connection between these countries on a political level anymore, then please present such evidence to edify all of us. --KarlB (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Karl, I'm all in favour of empirical evidence, and you have not provided any. Once again you have spent a few minutes on Google and found one book whose title reflects your usage, but one book is not empirical evidence. Additionally, it doesn't appear that you have read the book, and Highking's comments below show that the author uses "British Isles" in an unusually restricted fashion.

  I look forward to your evidence of the commonality of politics between Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. (Note that the British–Irish Council is not a political body, but an inter-governmental one). You are the one who has decided that the "British Isles" has a common politics, so let's see the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment BHG I want to see the evidence that "British Isles" implies anything of what you suggest. Britain is not England, nor does it oppress Wales and Scotland. I don't like it isn't sufficient warrant vs POV.Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. A POV naming term used for an irrelevant geographical unit is not a

  WP:NOR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Comment Well, then, the onus is on you to show that the term implies what you state it implies. The British Isles is the correct term for the entity that we are talking about, and using an elliptical shunt doesn't evade this question. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it POV.Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So, you want a reference to prove that the adjective "British" implies that something is "British"? A grammar book would help you out there.

  It's tedious but predictable that objections to an anglocentric worldview are derided as "you don't like it", as if rejecting anglocentric terminology was evidence of having gotten out of bed on the wrong side. The government of Ireland, one of the two sovereign states involved, rejects this terminology. What more evidence do you need that it's not neutral? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How is "British Isles" Anglo-centric? It's not "English Isles", Britain did not exist prior to the Union. Britain would not exist without Scotland. Britain is a catch-all term to encompass the region. Is Edmund Burke Briton or Irish? Maybe we should nominate this category for deletion too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_people_of_Irish_descent. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Call it Anglocentric or Britocentric or whatever, it amounts to much the same thing in this context, because England has always been by far the largest nation in the UK, which it dominates economically, culturally and politically. It is interesting that even in your reply, you can't make up your mind whether "Britain" refers to the island or is "a catch-all term to encompass the region" (what region)?
  Can you even begin to comprehend why the sovereign state next to Britain objects to being as labelled by an adjective derived from the name of its former occupying power?
  There are two worldviews here, and per

  WP:NPOV we should use terminology which does not promote one worldview over another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong strong strong keep all. There are a couple of problems with this nomination:
  1. The categories themselves have not been tagged for deletion. I'm sure RA will fix this forthwith.
  2. I don't need to remind that
     WP:NOTCENSORED; in other words, the fact that this category results in hairs raising is not a good reason to delete, and if the problem is the word British Isles, then I suggest the whole Category:British Isles
     category be put up for deletion and discussion. If British Isles is not the problem, then we have to have a substantive discussion around whether such a category should exist and is useful.
• The standard for category creation is
  WP:DEFINING
  ; in other words, do outside sources regularly refer to the contents using the name provided in the category. I'll just cite a few examples::
  • Politics of the British Isles from book on history of the British Isles; book chapter titled "Politics of the British Isles"; Nicholas Aylott, John Barry, Iain Ogilvie; The Politics of the British Isles: A Comparative Introduction, Sage Publications, 2005; (this is a whole book on the subject)
  • Political parties of the British Isles book reference; ""This major, authoritative reference work embraces the spectrum of organized political activity in the British Isles. It includes over 2500 organizations in 1700 separate entries.": Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century; Peter Barberis, John McHugh, Mike Tyldesley; Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005
  • The cat
    List_of_barons_in_the_peerages_of_the_British_Isles or List_of_eldest_sons_of_earls_in_the_peerages_of_the_British_Isles
    . Thus I'd suggest that that particular nomination either be moved to a separate discussion, or all of those articles be proposed for deletion/discussion at the same time. Nobility is now in a different nom, so ignore previous.
• Finally, now that we've demonstrated that outside sources do indeed use this classification (and a book has recently been written with exactly that title, to say nothing of the hundreds of books of history/political history of the British Isles that a browse through the 'British Isles history' section of the dewey decimal classification will demonstrate) we come to the rationale of the nominator - that we don't *do* this for other areas, so why should we do this for the British Isles? Here, I simply point out that
  • The British isles, all of them, shared for almost 400 years a single head of state, and for over 100 years, they formed a single United Kingdom (excluding the crown dependencies).
  • The category Category:British Isles includes rich categories like Category:History of the British Isles, which has been around since at least 2007; and we don't have Category:History of Benelux or Category:History of Scandinavia, so if the nom really believes the non-existence those categories is a reason to delete this one, then I suggest Category:History of the British Isles should also be nominated.
  • The nominator claims these are only container categories. This is not true - there are actually articles that fit perfectly here, such as
    British Unionism and other offshoots.--KarlB (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Wow. So much POV I don't know where to begin ;-) Which is a pretty much the point. We don't group countries together like this because any such grouping is likely to be POV-laden. (The smiley face is genuine BTW because I'm not using "POV" as a bad word.)

  This is a very interesting perspective in which to look at these polities (and one that I am very interested in as you may know if you follow my editing). But to place them in a category together (particularly while we do not group other like regions) is hugely problematic. It places an epistimic slant on the category tree and presents a particular view of the world that (while not invalid) is of a certain and unshared point of view. It presents, as you link in

  WP:DEFINING

  , this grouping a defining attribute for politics in this region. It is not. The politics of the UK is not defined by it being in the British Isles. Neither is the politics of Ireland or of the dependencies of the UK in the region.

  "...there are actually articles that fit perfectly here, such as

  British-Irish Council..." - Yes, and this is why (while skeptical) I was initially supportive of the category. The problem is the general "lumping" that follows (e.g. sub-catting every category to do with politics of the different states in the region underneath, add historic categories as modern politics, creating new categories like Category:Political movements of the British Isles and Category:Political parties in the British Isles

  , adding specifically UK-based articles to the cat, etc.). That is the POV door that, once opened, flies out of hand and cannot be shut. I too would like the (very few) articles that do fit into a category like this to have a category of their own but, unfortunately, this cannot be it.

  The nobility category is seperate. I've struck it and will raise it seperately.

  Lastly, and of little importance, I point you to

  talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks. In return, I point you to:

  • Category:Scandinavian_political_parties
  • Category:Nordic_politics
  • Category:Political posters of Scandinavia
  • Category:Benelux
  • Category:Baltic nobility

  And that's just in Europe. I haven't trolled the other parts of the world yet. So I think that sort of undoes your main point- which is, we haven't done this for other regions. As it turns out, we have. --KarlB (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have several objections to the three main points above, but the most glaring error is contained in the last statement. England, the largest and most populous area of the British Isles is not represented at all. Wales, Scotland/Alba, Ireland/Éire, Northern Ireland are not even islands. Pan-Celticism includes Normandy, not even in the BIs. The BIC has deliberately eschewed the term British Isles, and no reference to that archipelago will be found in any of their correspondence. Why might that be? RashersTierney (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, perhaps the BIC has eschewed this term. But remember,

  WP:NOTCENSORED; so even if BIC has to tread lightly, we don't. For now, consensus has accepted the use of British Isles in category names: intitle:British isles. As soon as that consensus changes, it would be perfectly reasonable to rename these to 'Atlantic Isles' or 'atlantic archipelago' or whatever other term is agreed upon. Until then, there's no reason to do so. Also, per your point on Pan-Celticism - the purpose of this category is not that every article must contain every country in the category; there's no perfect place for Pan-Celticism, but it's currently location isn't bad.--KarlB (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  With regard to there "there's no perfect place for Pan-Celticism" that article is already categorised in, among other things,

  talk) 19:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Per broader discussion on pan-country categories of this type, that are not based on continents or country, I've found the following now:

• Category:Nordic_politics (all the nordic countries)
• Category:Nordic_Agrarian_parties (agrarian parties across nordic countries)
• Category:Scandinavian_political_parties (parties from all nordic countries)
• Category:Political posters of Scandinavia
• Category:Eurasia (non-continental category (at least according to normal contents used here)
• Category:Politics_of_the_Caribbean (sub-regional categorization)
• Category:Politics of the Channel Islands (they are governed separately, but grouped nonetheless)
• Category:Political movements in Southeast Asia sub-regional grouping
• Category:Benelux (small political grouping)
• Category:Political parties in the Middle East (sub-regional categorization)
• Category:Baltic nobility (grouping of nobility by sub-regions)
• Category:Baltic rebellions sub-regional grouping of rebellions
• Category:Balkan rebellions sub-regional grouping of rebellions

I think you could make a good argument for a Category:Politics of Benelux category, which the Category:Benelux more or less serves as now. And as illustrated, we already have Nordic groupings, carribean groupings, middle east groupings - all of which are more or less sub-continental geographic distinctions; the difference being, none of those other groupings has ever shared a head of state for over ~400 years, so if we're deleting politics cats, we should delete those before these... --KarlB (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl, Wikipedia is

intersection by location

and (in this context) that's a recipe for a POV cocktail.

Category:Nordic politics provides a good example for what this category could be. (I was going to suggest it but you beat me to it!) It's clear in it's focus and is not just a POV catch-all for anything to do with "politics" that just happens to take place in "Scandinavia". A reason for that, I believe, is because it doesn't focus on a "some random thing" in "some random place" but on a single specific and identifiable "thing": Nordic politics. One could imagine an article on Nordic politics. What would an article on politics of the British Isles be about? (Contrast with History of the British Isles, which has a clear focus.)

What I suggest then is a renaming to provide tighter focus (and still the deletion of the others):

• Category:Politics of the British Isles → Category:British-Irish politics (after the British–Irish Council, British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly, etc. in the same vein as Category:Nordic politics and the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers).

That category, like

talk) 19:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

One could certainly imagine a number of articles about politics of the British Isles. As I pointed out earlier, a book was recently written, called Politics of the British Isles. If you look at Nordic politics, the articles within are not just about a certain set of political institutions. Also, British-Irish to me doesn't appropriately capture the crown dependencies; even though those guys can get British passports, I'm not sure to what extent they identify as 'British'. Also, given that Nordic politics has Scandinavian political parties underneath is an argument for keeping the political parties cat, which I (and others) have already found useful. Why the rush to delete before we've figured out how useful these cats might be? I don't think the scope is confusing - subcats containing politics of the individual countries (really just a container then), and individual articles on politics/relations/etc between the countries of the British isles. I don't think that's confusing at all, and it mirrors Nordic politics perfectly.--KarlB (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, the book you cite is a

defining

) "politics of the British Isles".

Is the case that, like Unionism in the United Kingdom, you are citing books you have not read? There is a whole Further reading section in that article that you added full of books you cite without knowing what their contents is. That is a very dangerous and misleading trait. It is not welcome at all.

"Why the rush to delete before we've figured out how useful these cats might be?" - Because that is something that should be figured out before creating cats. We don't create cats just to see if the might be useful. As in this case, they might make little or no sense.

"...given that Nordic politics has Scandinavian political parties underneath is an argument for keeping the political parties cat..." - That is no argument for keeping these categories in this case. Focus on this specific case and try to justify these cats in this case.

"British-Irish to me doesn't appropriately capture the crown dependencies..." - Take it to the sole political institutions "of the British Isles": the

talk) 09:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you're right: "That is a wholly different thing to talking about a definable (never mind

defining) "politics of the British Isles"." That is why I proposed a rename to Category:Politics in the British Isles, this was a mistake in the original category name, so let's just rename and move on with our lives.--KarlB (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete all. I think a can of worms is being opened up here that will cause more trouble than it's worth. Hohenloh ⁺ 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Will certainly serve as a locus for unnecessary drama and no counter arguments have been put forward to keep that have convinced me of any logical benefit. This cat. has no parallel in normal political discourse from 'the real world' that I can see. RashersTierney (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment so you want to delete because you think they might be controversial? I suggest you take a look at Category:British Isles, lots more trouble brewing there... Also, I'd be interested to know, exactly what kind of drama do you think might come about because of a category like this? Can you describe something controversial that can come out of this? Also while I appreciate you don't see a parallel in political discourse, perhaps you would take a look at the sources I provided above, which do use such terminology. --KarlB (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  'Politics of the British Isles' is a wikipedia invention dating back to no more than a few days ago. Novelty is not what we are supposed to be about. I have followed your arguments but am not convinced by them. RashersTierney (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They provide a useful grouping of related topics. The fact that some editors find the BI term objectionable is irrelevant. Van Speijk (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the "British Isles" makes for a tidy grouping of a geographic location, it's not a good grouping for politics. Also as a point - the book quoted above as "proof" is not a very good proof. It is riddled with naming inaccuracies (in terms of what we use here on WP). The preface explains why he chose to use "British Isles" but actually defines it as being "England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland" - which is not the definition used here on Wikipedia (but one we've seen before, especially in historic works). The book uses multiple names for the state, Ireland, such as "Irish state", "Irish Republic", "Republic of Ireland" and contains jewels such as "The result of the conflict was the creation of an independent state in southern Ireland, leaving the remaining six counties of the north-east as a semi-autonomous 'province' within the United Kingdom. There was now a political border within the British Isles for the first time since the sixteenth century". Hows that Isle of Man! Finally, based on the link given for the references provided above, searching for terms "political parties" "British Isles" in Google books as a means of justifying the category is
  HighKing (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment I really want to understand, so please explain more fully. Why do you think it is not a good grouping for politics? Because the politics are incendiary, and the various parts of those Isles have a long and bloody history together? Do you not think that the fact that *all* of the countries in the British isles were under a single head of state for 400 years is moot point? Remember, a category is not a political statement; if it were, then there are much bigger fish to fry than these. I think the very fact that people are protesting so loudly, is actually an additional reason to keep these categories. In any case, if you have alternative names to propose, please propose them... Also, I've just re-read your comment, it seems that your critique is of the book by Hugh Kearney? Since you're in a sparring mood, I'd suggest you take on the good professor himself, instead of a humble wikipedian like myself, and write him a letter to ask him to correct the glaring errors in his book (about which which the NY Times said: Kearney's book should be widely used to educate those who think they know about British history when in fact they know only English history; it is cited by 207 other works googlescholar)--KarlB (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For me at least, I'm not interested in discussing this with an editor that actually tries to politicize both the editors and the discussion. Your opening comments, where you suggest the reasons for my views as political motives along a nationalistic line (or vice versa), are offensive. Your comment I think the very fact that people are protesting so loudly, is actually an additional reason to keep these categories goes against policies and shows a
  HighKing (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks. Also, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend.--KarlB (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Per a different discussion with RA, I would propose that we rename as follows:
  • Category:Politics of the British Isles -> Category:Politics in the British Isles
  • Category:Political movements of the British Isles -> Category:Political movements in the British Isles
• Which makes it more clear that the
  Scandanavia. --KarlB (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What happened to Strong strong strong keep all? RashersTierney (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment I still think they should be kept (all 3). Changing 'of' to 'in' may make their purpose more clear.--KarlB (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can see, their purpose is to create an irrelevant group. There is a partially-shared polity between Britain and Ireland, but not between Ireland and the crown dependencies. The fact that a geographical term exists does not mean that it is relevant to all topics, and the creation of an irrelevant group which thereby introduces POV terminology is not neutral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, let me see if I can follow your argument here. You think it is 'irrelevant' (so, I think that means, we can discard that POV, since it's just an opinion, and not based on any policy). Next sentence - you admit there is a link in British/Irish politics. Ok, good. I assume you would also accept there is a link in British/Channel-Island politics. Good. But because the link between Irish politics and channel island politics is weak (i.e., one leg of the triangle), the whole category suddenly becomes irrelevant? How does that work? "The fact that a geographical term exists does not mean that it is relevant to all topics" - yes, I agree. So why not go after, say Category:Scandinavian law? or, I dunno, any of the other thousands of categories in Category:Regions_of_Europe... But with Category:Politics of the British Isles, you have a triangle, and 2 of the three legs are clearly strong, that to me suggests, um, there is something there.--KarlB (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  More verbose nonsense :(

  A triangle is a 3-sided object, and one of the sides of the triangle you describe is the political interconnection between Ireland the Channel Islands, which basically does not exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Also, politics is not an entity residing in, but an activity of, so should stay of. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "...but an activity of..." 'Of' what? What is doing the activity? A bunch of islands? How does the British Isles act that we can have a politics "of" the British Isles?

  A specific problem is that the politics "of" the British Isles, if it exists at all, is extremely limited. Common (non-historic) institutions do exist since 1999, but they have no competencies. There are scarcely common political parties across the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, never mind across the five states of the British Isles. So, to talk about the politics "of" the British Isles is very misleading. It simply isn't there except in a comparative and IR sense.

  So what do we see in this category then? Well, there are sub-cats to do with historic dukedoms, and lists of nobility, and what we are told are pan-Celtic "political movements of the British Isles". It's Harry Potter stuff. Even Category:Politics of the United Kingdom doesn't contain reference to the monarch.

  There is the potential for a very limited category here to do with the

  British-Irish Council, British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly and the Common Travel Area

  . Those are items to do with the politics "of" the British Isles. The rest however is pure fantasy. And, unfortunately, the current title is an open jam jar for all kinds of nonsense of that sort. It needs to be made more specific so that it doesn't invite any more cruft of the sort it has begun collecting.

  Finally, the makey-uppy "Political parties of the British Isles" and "Political movements of the British Isles" simply need to go. No such things exist. --

  talk) 08:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Right. So... Political parties exist. the British isles exists. But political parties in the British isles? They don't exist. I'm sure the philosophers would have fun with that turn of phrase... How do I make this more clear - it is a geographical container. Just like Scandinavia or the Baltics or the Carribbean or the Middle east - and in this case, there happen to be a few articles which also fit in the top level.

  "Category:Politics of the United Kingdom doesn't contain reference to the monarch."? You will find the Monarch in Category:Government_of_the_United_Kingdom, just under Category:Politics of the United Kingdom.--KarlB (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the monarchs/etc - they are there because they form a clear and definable part of the politics in these isles, and monarchs already form part of every other political category, so we are just following the standard. If you find it too harry-potter-esque, we could put the royals and monarchs under nobility, and move nobility out to the parent category if it really irks you. In any case, please read the header again, which you yourself edited with me: "This category contains articles and categories relating to politics and international relations within and between the states of the British Isles, namely:..." I don't know why there is such drama over this name; all possible arguments are being fronted to find a logical chink in the armor - but this same crowd of editors will defend to the death Category:Hospitals in Ireland (when Ireland doesn't exist as a country) for navigational ease. But no such navigational ease could ever be granted to anyone wanting to do comparative politics of the British isles, or look at different political parties or movements across those isles - no, that is just Harry Potter fantasy-land stuff,and the cat must be shot on sight.--KarlB (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, you're not getting the point. Categories need to be based on more than simply the intersection of one topic ("British Isles") and another ("politics"). Navigational aids are fine. However, look at Category:Hospitals in Ireland. It's a very sparse category. It links solely to Category:Hospitals in Northern Ireland and Category:Hospitals in the Republic of Ireland (with a sub-category of Category:Teaching hospitals in Ireland). Contrast that with this category, which appears to be expanding with a similar pace as the universe.

  And no, the monarchy, etc. does not "form a clear and definable part of the politics in these isles". How do you imagine the British monarchy defines politics in the Republic of Ireland?

  The major problems for me with this category are that:

  • It has moved beyond it's scope (i.e. it includes things unrelated to the politics of the British Isles, such as Category:Dukedoms of the British Isles).
  • It includes in the super-category things only related to a sub-set (rather than leaving these in the sub-categories e.g. Royal Commission on the Constitution (United Kingdom)).
  • It includes sub-categories on things that only include sub-categories of of itself (e.g. Category:Political movements of the British Isles)
  • It includes things things that are only formed on the basis of
    intersection by location (e.g. Category:Political parties in the British Isles
    ).

  What I propose is this (as a whole):

  1. Keep
     British-Irish Council, Common Travel Area
     , etc.)
  2. Remove the lengthy introduction to the category and replace it with a clear, succinct and agreed text that defines the content of the category.
  3. Keep a small number of head-line sub-cats, e.g. Category:Politics of Ireland (since some items straddle Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Politics of Northern Ireland), Category:Politics of the United Kingdom, Category:Politics of the Isle of Man, Category:Politics of the Channel Islands.
  4. Create Category:Politics of the British Islands for those issues that relate solely to the British Islands.
  5. Delete Category:Political parties in the British Isles as being already dealt with in the respective sub-cat.
  6. Rename Category:Political movements of the British Isles → Category:Political movements in the British Isles and tighten so as to pertain only to those movements that substantially affect the politics of the British Isles as a whole (e.g. unionism, nationalism, etc.)
  7. Remove the categories relating to dukedoms, nobility, etc. as not being relevent to the (modern) politics of the Isles (and certainly not as a whole)
  8. Add items that relate to the politics of the British Isles as a whole
  9. Include Category:Ireland–United Kingdom relations, on the basis that the UK represents the Crown Dependencies externally and thus this this category encompasses the archipelago as a whole (as does not pertain solely to the UK and ROI).

  Does that sound fair and reasonable? --

  talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I would also (again) suggest rename

  talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • I guess I'm a bit confused. We don't require any other container categories to adhere to this standard that every article must apply to the whole. Category:History of the British Isles doesn't adhere to that, nor does Category:Politics of the Caribbean, nor does any other of thousands upon thousands of container categories. Why are you trying to enforce such a standard here, and per what policy? As for dukedoms/nobility, that's fine, move that out to the parent, if you have a suggestion for a name to group them let me know (but some are trying to delete them...) - if we keep Category:Nobility of the British Isles (or in), then dukes/monarchs/royals can all go in there, and we can pull them out of this cat if it bugs you. As for the subcats, again I point to the Category:Scandinavian political parties, and others, so you need to be fair and ice those too, and use the same logic. But the question is, what is the logic? Given the intertwined politics of that region, is it not useful to group the political parties together? We have "squillions" of categories that regroup things found in their children. For example, um, every category in Category:Europe. So, regrouping things found in the children is not only a problem, it's actually practiced on a massive scale, for thousands upon thousands of categories. So why does it bother you so much here? Why not go after, I dunno, Category:Alcohol_in_Europe - it also regroups things found in the sub-cats of Category:Europe. Also I'm not sure I understand your phrase 'expanding at the pace of the universe' - it is a tiny category, and not likely to grow a lot more - you sound so DRAMATIC. Why is everyone making such a big deal about this cat? Why does it bother you so much that the intro is a bit long - shall we turn the intro into an article? That's fine with me - please recall, that you were one of those who expanded the intro! Also, please don't create British Islands categories, that's probably just taking things one step too far - we don't have an existing Category:British Islands category tree, and I don't think it's worth it to create one; Category:British Isles is sufficient.--KarlB (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also to respond to your allegation of

    intersection by location

    , if you read that it says "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Are you thus suggesting that fact that political movements are in the British Isles have nothing to do with their other characteristics? In other words, being part of the British Isles means nothing in terms of politics or political movements, or the creation of political parties, or political platforms, or political ideologies? Really? If you want to make that claim, well I'm not even going to bother asking for sources, as we'll be waiting a long time. I think one could fairly claim that being part of the British Isles is more determining than being part of Europe for example...

    But I want to respond point by point, if you don't mind.

    1. "Keep Category:Politics of the British Isles, but with a far tighter scope (i.e. the politics of the British Isles as a whole e.g. British-Irish Council, Common Travel Area, etc.)." No. I think anything having to do with bilateral relations is fair game here. For example, if there was an article about Irish/Manx relationships, it could go there. See above - why oblige every article to apply to the whole -we've never applied such a standard for any geo-container.
    2. "Remove the lengthy introduction to the category and replace it with a clear, succinct and agreed text that defines the content of the category." Addressed above - you helped write that. Feel free to cut it - it's not that long actually.
    3. "Keep a small number of head-line sub-cats, e.g. Category:Politics of Ireland (since some items straddle Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Politics of Northern Ireland), Category:Politics of the United Kingdom, Category:Politics of the Isle of Man, Category:Politics of the Channel Islands." agreed.
    4. "Create Category:Politics of the British Islands for those issues that relate solely to the British Islands." ugh. please don't.
    5. "Delete Category:Political parties in the British Isles as being already dealt with in the respective sub-cat." No, this is a useful grouping of sub-cats. I don't think we should group 'everything' (as Category:Europe) does, but political parties? esp when there are political parties that crossed country lines? keep.
    6. "Rename Category:Political movements of the British Isles → Category:Political movements in the British Isles and tighten so as to pertain only to those movements that substantially affect the politics of the British Isles as a whole (e.g. unionism, nationalism, etc.)" Rename, no problem. I think we could keep the subcats of movements by country, then the cat could contain articles, as you say, about movements that cross the Isles.
    7. "Remove the categories relating to dukedoms, nobility, etc. as not being relevent to the (modern) politics of the Isles (and certainly not as a whole)" As I said above, that's fine, just move to the parent.
    8. "Add items that relate to the politics of the British Isles as a whole" yes - more help needed here.
    9. "Include Category:Ireland–United Kingdom relations, on the basis that the UK represents the Crown Dependencies externally and thus this this category encompasses the archipelago as a whole (as does not pertain solely to the UK and ROI)." It was already in there. --KarlB (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This project has enough Categories and we don't need to encourage more pointless ones like this. BI is a bad enough term when used in the context of geography without adding into the political spectrum. Bjmullan (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment so what you're saying is, British Isles is a bad term. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl I don't need you or anyone else to summarise my already brief comment. Pointless category. Bjmullan (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't get this category. For example is there some political relationship between the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland? Seems quite OR to me. Weak support to RA's proposal to rename to British-Irish politics and to tighten focus.
  talk) 22:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  comment I just want to be clear on the point you're making. are you saying that if there was some sort of relationship between RoI and Channel Islands, you would support this cat? I'm just not sure what you're opposed to. Also, per your logic, please study

  British-Irish Council and Category:Nordic politics--KarlB (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Karl, in reply to your comment above and your post of 23:45, the first point in my suggested "criteria" — that items in the category must be related to the British Isles as a whole — really is substantial. Let me explain why:

  "I think anything having to do with bilateral relations is fair game here. For example, if there was an article about Irish/Manx relationships, it could go there." ̄ — That cannot happen. The Isle of Man (or any of the Channel Islands) does not have competency for external relations. This is the substantial reason for why the category makes such little sense. There are only two sovereign states on the archipelago. None of the three other states in the archipelago have competency for external relations. Thus the only bi-lateral relations that can exist on the archipelago are

  Ireland-United Kingdom relations

  . Consequently, any item at the top-level that does not pertain to the whole set is incorrectly placed. It doesn't pertain to the British Isles, it pertains either to the Republic of Ireland or to the United Kingdom (and it's dependencies).

  All of the shared institutions "of the British Isles" (e.g. the British-Irish Council, the Common Travel Area, etc.) are in fact solely institutions of

  talk) 00:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sorry, wrong again. for one, "Jersey has established substantial bilateral and multilateral international relationships..."; [13]... You are correct that UK is responsible for international relations for Isle of Man; but this does not mean no relationships can be formed, and that no politics happen. Anyway, my example was just theoretical; it still doesn't explain why every single article must apply to every single country. Do we apply that standard to any other geographical container category, anywhere? Why are we trying to apply such exacting, precise, tough standards to a simple container category? I really think your time might be better spent dealing with the mess in the Category:Ireland tree - the so-called "navigation" is totally messed up; tons of articles about RoI can only be found in the I tree... One more thing... West_Nordic_Council and Scandinavian_defence_union both do *not* have to do with all countries in Category:Nordic politics, yet there they sit, happily. I just don't buy your argument of 'as a whole' - there is zero precedent for this in any other geographical container category that I have seen. Also, FWIW, I removed the dukes and nobles from politics and stuck them in the parent, and added a few more cats to the nobles.--KarlB (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, look here (or here for further background). The United Kingdom is responsible the external relations of Jersey, just as it is for all of the Crown Dependencies.

  The reason "everyone [is] making such a big deal about this cat" is because this is a topic area that is subject to much POV pushing,

  particularly fringe POVs. Your approach to the topic demonstrates that you are not immune to that tendency. (For example, with regards to your edit of last night

  , the monarchs of the United Kingdom relate solely to the politics of the United Kingdom, not of the British Isles.)

  Now, I've suggested a way around this. We'll create a sub-category

  we'll cross that bridge if it comes

  .

  And please, stop harking about the Nordics. Nordic politics and the

  talk) 08:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  RA, I appreciate your good faith efforts to find a solution. I think we're close to a consensus (at least between the two of us!). Moving to Category:Politics in the British Isles will go a long way to easing concerns about the contents (and captures the intent much better); in addition, continuing to reword the header to make clear that this is not a catch-all for anything having to do with any politics anywhere, but rather having to do mostly with politics between the countries, and would be a good start. I added the monarchs because I removed Category:Royalty in the British Isles, which you had disputed; the Monarchs seemed a better fit, since the cat isn't a historical collection, but rather a modern cat which contains the head of state for all but one country in the Isles. Unfortunately, the arguments that you, and others, have put forward, do not hold much water. Your first argument for deletion, that we haven't done this elsewhere, has been handily dispatched, and at great length. You've now tried to argue that 'Nordic politics' is somehow different than 'Politics of the British isles', which I'm sure it is, but I'm not sure how that translates into one having a cat, and the other not. I could point you to [14] or [15] if you want to compare google books search results. Or, we could talk about your argument that they form a "form a cohesive and well-discussed perspective on politics and social policy" - does that mean that the fact the Nordic countries seem to agree on things makes the category worthwhile - but if there's disagreement, then the cat should be iced? Hmm. Not a very strong argument. Finally, you seem to be ignoring a few, undisputed facts:

  1. There exist intergovernmental bodies set up to deal with political relationships and agreements in the British Isles. In fact the informal name of the council was "Council of the British Isles". That they renamed it to not offend does not mean wikipedia should do the same. — User:Karl.brown (14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)[reply]

     Karl has posted a variant of this untruth twice in this discussion.

     The claim that the council was "renamed" is simply false. It was created as the

     British-Irish Council

     , and has retained that name throughout its existence. A name which incorporated the POV term "British Isles" may have been proposed at some point, but it was never adopted.

     The fact that the relevant governments working in co-operation chose to avoid the POV term "British Isles" is highly relevant, because it demonstrates: a) that objections to the use of "British Isles" are not simply an invention of some Wikipecdia editors, but a factor in an international dispute; b) that there is an alternative neutral terminology. Per the core policy

     WP:NPOV, the neutral terminology should be used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

     ]

  2. All of the countries in the Isles were under a single sovereign for 400 years, and share a long history. Excluding the crown dependencies, all countries were also part of a single nation for at least 100 years, and until recently (i.e. this is not ancient history)!
  3. The term "politics of the British Isles" is widely used in 3rd party sources to describe the relationships between various countries in the isles
  4. This category forms part of a well-and-long established category tree, that includes Category:History of the British Isles, Category:Monarchs of the British Isles and many others. Category:History of the British Isles has already been nominated for deletion, and survived.

  Most of the other arguments above amount to either "i don't like it/it bothers me/its a bad term/it's POV": "a can of worms is being opened","is a wikipedia invention","a locus for unnecessary drama",it's not a good grouping for politics","their purpose is to create an irrelevant group","we don't need to encourage more pointless ones like this.","BI is a bad enough term when used in the context of geography without adding into the political spectrum","I don't get this category. For example is there some political relationship between the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland?", etc.

  The arguments you've made, which are more based on logic, still do not hold up; for example one of your big tiffs against Category:Political parties in the British Isles is that they group together things found in the subcats, but you had no response to the fact that Category:Europe does exactly that as a matter of course. Your more recent attempts seem to suggest that this is somehow a logically incorrect grouping, and now your arguments have come down to focusing for example on arcane details of whether Jersey is able to form bi-lateral relationships (they can) - which is besides the point point in any case. In general I feel like there's a sort of Irish exceptionalism at work here, in that the main thing people are opposed to is the inclusion of Ireland in any such grouping, and people are using all possible forms of logical and rhetorical approaches to undermine the idea of this category, disregarding all outside sources which regularly use this term.--KarlB (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, I appreciate you are in good faith but your arguments (and those few in support of this cat) are far more along the lines of

  they don't like it

  (e.g. "I think the very fact that people are protesting so loudly, is actually an additional reason to keep these categories").

  A lot of what you are doing is conflating the politics (and even history) of the United Kingdom (including its dependencies) with the politics of the British Isles as whole. We already already have an category on the Category:Politics of the United Kingdom. We don't need a second one.

  Category:British Islands will take care of that should the category remain. It will keep the stuff merely to do with the UK and its dependencies in one box and not conflate it with the politics of the archipelago in a genuine sense.

  By the way, should you care to know, the heads of state of the region are the

  Queen of the United Kingdom, the Duke of Normandy and the Lord of Mann. Elizabeth Windsor is the holder of three of those four offices. However, to say that the monarch of the United Kingdom is "the head of state for all but one country in the Isles" is like saying that the President of Galway United F.C.

  is the head of state of the remainder. True, but it entirely misses the point.

  Finally,

  talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

1. There exist
   intergovernmental bodies set up to deal with political relationships and agreements in the British Isles. In fact the informal name of the council was "Council of the British Isles". That they renamed it to not offend does not mean wikipedia should do the same. Since these institutions exist, the debate then becomes whether we should call it Category:British-Irish politics or Category:UK-Ireland politics or Category:British Isles/Ireland politics
   or something else that somehow captures the point, or just keep the name as is, in line with other decisions already made by consensus at Wikipedia. But the discussion then is *not* whether the cat should exist, so if you're proposing it be kept, please revise the proposal at the top of the page.
2. All of the countries in the Isles were under a single sovereign for 400 years, and share a long history. Excluding the crown dependencies, all countries were also part of a single nation for at least 100 years, and until recently (i.e. this is not ancient history)!
3. The term "politics of the British Isles" is widely used in 3rd party sources to describe the relationships between various countries in the isles. The study of comparative politics in the archipelago is well established, and the relations between these countries (and their distinction from continental politics) forms the subject of much academic discussion, debate, and scholarship (many hits here: [16], etc)
4. This category is part of a well-and-long established category tree, that includes Category:History of the British Isles, Category:Monarchs in the British Isles and many others. Category:History of the British Isles has already been nominated for deletion, and survived.
5. We agree there are extant
   multilateral political arrangements between these countries. You have disputed whether bi-lateral arrangements other than UK/RoI can possibly exist - but I'm afraid you're wrong. There are many other sorts of relationships extant between these countries than just bilateral UK govt/Ireland. I've already mooted the theoretical possibility of Jersey-Ireland relations, but what about an actual bilateral agreement between the Isle of man and Ireland [17], [18],[19] - note that the news article is in the 'Irish Politics' section... Or, this quote from Mary Robinson: "There are no two countries in Western Europe which are as close; not only in a shared past but also in what we have in common today. It is timely that we renew these links between modern Ireland and the modern Scotland. (Mary Robinson)" (or here [20]) Do you really think RoI has nothing to do with discussions about Scottish independence? That they've never been consulted, they're not part of the story? [21] Really? I don't want to continue spamming you with google links, but the constant insistence that RoI is somehow divorced from all of the politics in the region is patently false. RoI enjoys bilateral relationships with many countries in the Isles, *not* just with the central UK govt (e.g. agreements like Ireland/Wales: http://www.irelandwales.ie/
   ). I just want to underline again that common heritage, history, and language is an incredibly important factor in politics, and the fact that Ireland became independent does not suddenly mean that relations between Ireland/UK/Dependencies are basically equivalent to relations of Ireland to Tajikistan. The thousands of google hits, news articles, books, and even this discussion underlines that point.

In sum, no-one has been able to refute any of these points, all of which support the existence of this category. In any case, why not go back to the compromise you proposed above - I agreed with almost all of them. Can't we use that as a basis for compromise? Category:British Islands, which would leave out RoI, would be much less useful. You seem to disparage the idea of this category 'catching' random things, but that's actually what I find most useful about it - where else could I go to understand all of the relationships between these isles? If I want to understand inter-nordic politics, I go to Category:Nordic politics, if I want to understand inter-Caribbean politics, I go to Category:Politics of the Caribbean - so why can't I go to Category:Politics of the British Isles to learn about inter-Isles politics? Let's focus on defining the scope of this category, and remove the delete nominations above since it's clear that there is value here.--KarlB (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On each of your points:

• Point 1:
  • "In fact the informal name of the council was 'Council of the British Isles"." — The formal name of the Council was never that.
  • "Since these institutions exist, the debate then becomes whether we should call it…" — Ireland-United Kingdom relations. The bodies you refer to were established by the Ireland and the United Kingdom under the British-Irish Agreement as an outcome of the Good Friday Agreement. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (like the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) participate owing to their relationship with the UK.
  • "But the discussion then is *not* whether the cat should exist, so if you're proposing it be kept, please revise the proposal at the top of the page." — The discussion is very much whether the category should exist.

I suppose it's not worth pointing out that Channel islands are not part of the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)

I never said they were. --

talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Point 2:
  • "All of the countries in the Isles were under a single sovereign for 400 years…" — And currently 15 other sovereign states are under the same sovereign. So what? Many countries in Europe have shared sovereigns over the course of history and the borders of Europe have come and gone over time.
  • "Excluding the crown dependencies, all countries …" — Excluding? So by "all", you mean "two", then?
  • "…were also part of a single nation for at least 100 years, and until recently (i.e. this is not ancient history)!" — Sure, if by "recently" you mean 90 years ago. In any case, that country was and still is the United Kingdom. We already have Category:United Kingdom. We don't need a second one.
• Point 3:
  • "The term "politics of the British Isles" is widely used in 3rd party sources…" — And are these books you have read or are you still citing books based solely on titles you seed advertised on Amazon?

I have no idea what this means. I've already read the Kearny book a few years ago, I'm deep into the Welsh book now. Your little snippy points about what I have and haven't read are petty. What have *you* read? Please stop this silliness. --KarlB (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Point 4:
  • "This category is part of a well-and-long established category tree…" — That doesn't mean that this is a branch of a tree that merited.
• Point 5:
  • "We agree there are extant multilateral political arrangements between these countries." — No. That is a bi-lateral arrangement, between Ireland and the United Kingdom. It is, however, a forum for all of the polities on the archipelago, not just Ireland and the United Kingdom.

I suggest you look up what bilateral/multilateral means: [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)

The British-Irish Council is multilateral. The "arrangement" (i.e. the British-Irish Agreement) is bilateral. That's what I mean by the difference between the first and second sentences above. Its a possibly pedantic point but made for clarity's sake. --

talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• • "You have disputed whether bi-lateral arrangements other than UK/RoI can possibly exist - but I'm afraid you're wrong." — In some limited circumstance, particularly relating to matters the islands already have competency for, the UK issues Letters of Entrustment from for the islands to conduct relations on their own. These may become more common in future.

Bingo. So you've conceded that point. Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)

It happens :-) --

talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• • "…the constant insistence that RoI is somehow divorced from all of the politics in the region is patently false." — Who is making that argument? A straw man?

No, you and others have. For example, BHG: "a geographical concept whose politics has little commonality" "The politics of the UK is not defined by it being in the British Isles. Neither is the politics of Ireland or of the dependencies of the UK in the region." "A specific problem is that the politics "of" the British Isles, if it exists at all, is extremely limited." - coupled with your willingness to create Category:British Islands to store the politics of UK + Crown dependencies - so it's like you accept there might be politics in the British Islands, but politics of the British Isles? That's a no-no. Whats the diff? Ireland... So yes, you have claimed an Irish exception, directly or indirectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)

There is a world of a difference between what I or others have said and how you are interpreting it. Someone saying that the politics of the Republic of Ireland is not defined does not equate with that person insisting that the "ROI is somehow divorced from all of the politics in the region". In contrast, very clearly, being in the British Islands has a meaningful (and yes defining) impact on politics as can be observed the range and scope of laws enacted by the Parliament at Westminster. --

talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• • About the quote and speculation about relations between the ROI and Scotland,,
    I have not idea nor do I know why it would be relevant to this discussion
    .

This is not speculation. I'm not going to bore you with citations and references and news articles and journals, because you'll probably accuse me of not having read the book. So just look it up yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)

• • "I just want to underline again that common heritage, history…" — That nice, but it still doesn't explain why Wikipedia should have this category. You spend a lot of time talking about the culture and history of the region. That doesn't necessarily translate into a meaningful category for politics.
• Final paragraph:
  • "In sum, no-one has been able to refute any of these points…" — I've just done that.

Finally you attempted. I will leave it up to others to judge how successful you were.--KarlB (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • "…where else could I go to understand all of the relationships between these isles?" — Category:Ireland–United Kingdom relations.

Once again, crown dependencies are not there. I'm sorry but your insistence on logic in category names is going to bite you back. British isles is the correct geographical container.--KarlB (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are represented through the United Kingdom. This, however, is an argument I am making more to illustrate a point that anything else. --

talk) 20:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll post a further reply to it in a little while. --

talk) 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. If these categories related to other areas of the world there would be little or no debate here. Unfortunately the term 'British Isles' is disliked by a number of Wikipedia editors, some of whom have a track record of opposition to it. That dislike does not generally extend to the world at large, where the vast majority of people, even in Ireland, are not interested. As noted earlier, Wikipedia is not censored, except it is! Take

British Isles naming dispute. It is pure OR of the highest calibre, and as such highlights the on-wiki opposition to the term. I hope the closing admin takes account of the fact that most of the debate above is driven by a desire to censor Wikipedia by limiting use of the term 'British Isles'. We should not permit this to happen. Van Speijk (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The neutrality of the editor who makes that comment is best illustrated by their userpage, which [ has consisted since the day it was created with the edit summary "put up the flag"] of the Flag of the United Kingdom and the Flag of England.

This is not a question of censorship. It is a matter of not creating makey-up categories in order to promote the spread of a contested name for a geographical unit which is not relevant to this topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite what my (very basic) user page has got to do with anything I can't imagine. But, since you mention user pages, I note on yours a proclamation that you are from Ireland, so your "neutrality" is at least as suspect as mine. It is a question of censorship. Anyone can see that. It's just like Ireland, as I've already pointed out. You know as well as I do there would be no discussion such as this if the category was anything other than related to British Isles. I repeat; there are numerous editors here who work to reduce, and ideally eliminate, use of the term in Wikipedia, so they are naturally attacted to this debate. This is no more a "makey up" category than anything else. Like it or not, the British Isles is a valid term, used extensively in the real world and having categories related to it makes sense. Van Speijk (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely cannot see that an editor whose userpage consists solely of the flag of the Uk and one of its constituent countries displaying a remarkably high degree of prominence for the nationalism, then I can't explain it to you. On my talk page, I display the Irish userbox as the 11th of 17 attributes listed by userboxes, and also have a lot of text on other stuff. In your case, your flags are the only thing you choose to share.

I'm sorry that you have difficulty distinguishing between censorship and the use of neutral terminology which accurately describes the scope of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made some (relatively speaking) small changes. The headline cats are now:

• Politics of the Channel Islands
• Politics of Ireland
• Politics of the Isle of Man
• Politics of the United Kingdom
• British Islands
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations
• Political movements of the British Isles

What I suggest is that (as was already written in the intro): "This category should only be used for articles whose remit somehow overlaps any the categories contained below." This means that entries will not simply be about matters internal to the UK, or between the UK and its dependencies, but will be actually substantial to the politics (in the present tense) of the archipelago. That means that entries may be anything that from Hiberno-Manx tax agreements to the already existing

I've removed Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom because it only pertains to the UK (or at its maximal the UK + its dependencies).

I also suggest the following:

• Rename: Category:Political movements of the British Isles → Category:Political movements in the British Isles (as "in" is more accurate)
• Delete: Category:Political parties in the British Isles

The reason for this is because:

• The "Political parties of XXX" cats can just as easily be reached through the "Politics of XXX" sub-cats
• Political movements are more the commonly shared aspects of the politics of the British Isles rather than political parties per sé.
• The "movements" category provides the greater potential for growth (e.g. by including unionism, etc. as political movements shared across the archipelago)
• If we are to maintain the comparison with Category:Nordic politics then a "political movements" sub cat doesn't exist in that category. However, if we are to have one then the movements sub-cat is superior in this instance for the reasons I give above.

--

I agree on the rename, that is fine. I dont' agree on deleting political parties; as you know, there are linkages between some of these parties; I'm not sure what the argument is for deletion there; and we've already identified one party (though defunct) that is cross-Isle, I'm sure others will be found; and Category:Scandinavian political parties exists and nobody disputes it. As for the rest, that seems reasonable. I do ask that you reconsider on British Islands; with the existence of Category:Crown dependencies the cat doesn't have much of a purpose at all - those same articles could be stored there. Frankly though from a navigational perspective it just adds more confusion. Also, if kept, there should really be a 'politics of the British Islands' if it will be a sub-cat of Category:Politics of the British Isles - but again the question is, is it worth it to make that extra divide; British Islands is not nearly as well known as British Isles... --KarlB (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC) FWIW, I just found this which is of interest while looking into environmental issues between in the Isles: [23], [24] - turns out Ireland + Isle of Man were involved in a joint dispute with the UK (some of mediated through the BIC); I'm sure there are many more of these sorts of things... By the way thanks for your efforts at coming to consensus, I think we're very close, it seems the last sticky point is whether a grouping of political parties is useful - I find it fascinating actually, to compare various nationalist parties and their platforms.--KarlB (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"…we've already identified one party (though defunct) that is cross-Isle…." — Which is kind of the point. These parties don't exists. Movements, sure. Parties, no.

"…Category:Scandinavian political parties exists and nobody disputes it" —

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

?

If Category:British Islands expands greatly then a specific sub-category for Category:Politics of the British Islands can be added as necessary. It is a subject that pertains directly and solely to politics (and law) though. So I don't how it could expand beyond politics in any form.

I see you added the historical Category:Monarchs in the British Isles to Category:Politics of the British Isles. Please, if you are serious about this category, stop adding defunct monarchist trivia. It is not relevant to the modern-day politics of the archipelago.

The Sellafield thing is good — though it is probably looks very random to anyone uninitiated. The article doesn't mention the Isle of Man at all. Perhaps you can add this info? --

talk) 21:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

re: Sellafield, given the amount of coverage it got, it is probably worth a separate spin-off article from the main; at which point the main would be removed, and the controversy article added to this category.

As for the monarchs - I'm trying to find the right cat; the name of the cat is monarchs of the British isles; it's not my fault if the contents of that cat are a bit of a mish-mash; I tried to have the more prcise monarchs of the UK added, but you removed it - so please work with me. Every other political cat in the UK has references to the monarchy, and the monarchy is clearly relevant, especially to loyalists/royalists anywhere in the isles - including the RoI! You may think its fringe, which in RoI it probably is, but you can't wish it away. I'm not trying to make a political statement here...just every politics cat I've seen, if there's a monarchy, they are in it...

Finally as for the political parties; we could create Category:Defunct political parties in the British isles but I'm sure that would just annoy more people than just leaving it as is, and I'm sure we will find others - for example, Sinn Fein is in both Ireland/UK (NI) and are expanding: [25];[26]; so technically, Sinn Fein with a base in Westminster is already beyond an Category:All-Ireland political parties. I don't know where you get your info but the continued claims of non-existence of cross-country parties is really bizarre... --KarlB (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"…it is probably worth a separate spin-off article from the main…" I was thinking that too. It would also help us because a "Controversy over Sellafield" article would be more clearly related to the politics of the archipelago.

About the monarchs, the pressing problem is that monarchs, nobles, dukes, etc. are not relevant to the (modern) politics of the archipelago. They are only relevant to the UK and it's dependencies.

• not* true. see below. I agree nobles/dukes/etc should go (and they're already gone), but the royalty (or at least the monarchs?). Still quite relevant - even if RoI is a republic!!

"…the monarchy is clearly relevant, especially to loyalists/royalists…" — Ah, Loyalism, you say? Now, that is a perfect suggestion inclusion in Category:Political movements in the British Isles.

"Every other political cat in the UK has references to the monarch…" The British Isles is not the UK.

About

talk) 22:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

arghh.... No, I don't want to create a subcat... Ok re monarchs, you're going to be mad, but here's a book I haven't read, but it makes the case that the monarch is *not* irrelevant - even to modern Irish politics: [27] - look at page 381 "From the signing of the Agreement to 26 May 2006 seven official royal visits to the Irish Republic occurred. The extent to which Anglo-Irish relations were being transformed was registered in Jan 2004 when Michael Kennedy become the first former Irish government minister to be made an honorary companion of the most distinguished order of St. Michael and St. George" "A broad-ranging political and social history of the relationship of the British monarchy with Ireland from 1800 to the present. ..The analysis moves through to the present day, examining the monarchy's role in facilitating Anglo-Irish conciliation following the end of violent conflict in Northern Ireland. This comprehensive account makes a significant contribution to the history of Anglo-Irish relations, the monarchy, nationalism, unionism and the politics of identity." You do realize there are some in RoI who want to re-join the commonwealth? Come on... don't be nit-picky about this. I'm not a royalist, I could care less frankly - I'm just interested in presenting a fair picture - so saying the monarchy is irrelevant to the politics is, well, not supported by evidence as they say... --KarlB (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just more of the verbose silliness which has characterised KarlB's approach to these discussions. The fact that the monarchy of a neighbouring country has visited Ireland does not make monarchy a factor in Ireland, any more than the said family's visits to the USA makes monarchy a relevant factor there. As for the fact that the UK's head of state has played a role in bilateral relations, well hold the front page! That's one of the crucial roles of any head of state, whether elected or hereditary or otherwise, and it's nothing to do with monarchy per se -- it's about a head of state doing her job.

Similarly, citizens of nations all over the world accept honours from countries of which they are not citizens, but those are individual issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the "two Marys" (Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese) played an equally significant role ... but we're hardly going to add a category Category:Presdients of the British Isles in their honour, are we?

I've added

talk) 08:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

1. keep
   Sellafield controversy.--KarlB (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. rename Category:Political movements of the British Isles to Category:Political movements in the British Isles

We don't currently agree on Category:Political parties in the British Isles. But we've made a lot of progress otherwise. --KarlB (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no. That's not the current consensus, that's just the latest position in the discussion between two editors. Consensus involves all editors. I don't see where editors have changed their !votes above. The current consensus is to delete, notwithstanding future changes depending on where this discussion goes. --

HighKing (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, that's not how I'd read the votes; but I'm not a closing admin. In any case, I've updated the header to reflect that this is I believe a consensus between two. You're welcome to join us, the water's warm! :) --KarlB (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, judging from the number of times above that you have misrepresented RA's position, this notional 'consensus' between both of you is best taken with a generous pinch of salt by any closing admin. RashersTierney (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HK and RT above. Bjmullan (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to ask RA to clarify whether he agrees rather than just casting doubt. I am sorry that the initial header suggested the consensus was between more than just us two.--KarlB (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, it is just between us right now. I think you are doing a good job with the

talk) 08:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I didn't mean to suggest this was ever about more than consensus-of-two; my phrase above confirmed this, it was just the header that was too short (which I already fixed).--KarlB (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see this as a container category, including political movements in any of the areas. The distinction may be clear for those coing from that region with respect to present day movements, but it's not clear to outsiders, or for earlier times. I do not accept it means cross-jusidictions: I think no general reader would assume that. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would anyone from outside the area need this container category? We could create all sort of "Politics of" container categories for people from outside a particular area -- Category:Politics of East Africa, Category:Politics of the Maghreb, Category:Politics of the Levant, Category:Politics of Asia Minor, Category:Politics of East Africa, Category:Politics of the Great Lakes region ... but unless we have evidence that those are notable topics of scholarly study, those categories should not exist.

  The same applies here. Per DGG's logic, this is the creation of a

  WP:OR supra-category merely to help readers who a) know little about the topic, and b) somehow think that the best place to start researching its politics is not with any of the constituent countries or the continent, but a contested term for an archipelago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

It should be closed, a new discussion opened in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example of the sort of ill-informed content which as underpinned KarlB's comments: Ireland doesn't exist as a country. In fact Ireland existed as a country for hundreds of years, and the current independent state whose territory covers 5/6th of the island is called Ireland: that is its name, per article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland. It also ignores the fact that whist Ireland is not currently a unified nation state (and may never be united again), it remains a country in some senses: most sports are organised on an all-Ireland basis, as are the major religions (hugely significant in Ireland).

This lack of knowledge of basic facts relating to the complex history of the topic under discussion has not deterred the editor concerned from posting at huge length, and trumpeting that his points have not been refuted. Unfortunately, when so much material is posted on such a flimsy basis, it becomes too big a task to rebut it all. That is why I have chosen one very simple, basic error as an illustration of the disruption caused by this enthusiastic promotion of a perspective based on a very shallow foundation of knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •(contribs) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just want to be really clear here. Are you saying Ireland (the island) - which is what I meant - is currently a country, and I'm daft for saying it's not? I will admit that for the purposes of wikipedia, we are a bit flexible on the word country, but in terms of common usages, um, Ireland is not a country (but maybe it is, as you say, a country)???? Who here has 'lack of knowledge of basic facts'? --KarlB (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which of many set of contested definition you use. By a broad definition of "country", Ireland is a country of 32 counties, with countrywide structures for its major religions, its major sports, and many other issues. It is not currently a nation-state; the nation-state of Ireland covers a smaller area.

That's not the simple answer you wanted, but these issues are not simple, are there are many different POVs at play. The question of the difference between Ireland and Ireland has led to big disputes over naming, and there is no easy answer to the issues.

That's why simplistic statements such as your "Ireland doesn't exist as a country" are so disruptive. The tangled realities are much more subtle, and much more complex than your simplistic factoids acknowledge. Your post-facto justification of the comment is clearly an afterthought -- if you were aware of the ambiguities involved you would have phrased your initial comment with a lot more care. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Very Strong Support - I totally agree with your BHG. Bjmullan (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I'm sure someone out there will see the irony of BHG critiquing another editor for long discussions in CfD... :) I suppose, if we're taking a poll, that I would oppose the closure of the discussion, especially given that it doesn't seem to be trending the way BHG would like, her procedural comment above is, shall we say, a bit biased? --KarlB (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, if we just count votes, the discussion is not going your way, so your accusation of bias is false.

  My objection is not to long discussions, My objection is to your proliferation of many very long, and hugely repetitive posts, many of which are based either on fundamental misunderstandings of the topic or on "eureka!"-like use of googled snippets. Others are based on misrepresenting other editors, and the result of your verbosity is that the whole discussion is

  WP:TLDR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I just did some checking. As of an hour or so ago, this discussion came to 94KB of text, of which Karl Brown posted 48KB. The result is, quite predictably: tldr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR? Quite so. In which case rather than making it even longer I suggest you refrain from any further ill-informed judgements on the topic. Van Speijk (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if one editor spams a discussion, everyone else should shut up? Strange logic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it spamming. I agree with you that it's far too long, but that is because anything BI-related has that effect on Wikipedia. Maybe the salient points should be summarised (again!) and Karl should do it. PS: I take back my disparaging remark above. Van Speijk (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for retracting that remark. The conventional way to do so is to strike it out.
But for goodness sake, please spare us another of Karl's summaries of other editors points. When he has done that before, he has misrepresented other positions and spawned another screed of meta-discussion :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - any new category containing the phrase 'British Isles' should be speedily deleted on sight by the BIbot.
  Oculi (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: The following editors have been
  talk) 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete (very very strong strong very strong very): The Irish state is one entity, the UK (plus or minus whatever bits of land or sea the pedants say are not part of it or part of Britain or whatever) is another. Any "x of the British Isles", if it does not give the impression that the various constituent parts of the UK are equally independent (which it obviously doesn't), gives the impression that the Irish state is a small part of a larger system. It is therefore both biased and provocative. Scolaire (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment, and I appreciate your concern. However, there are two issues at play here: 1) the name 2) the category. Are you opposed to one, or the other, or both? If you're just opposed to the name, perhaps you could suggest a rename? Also FWIW, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but the crown dependencies not only exist, they also aren't part of the UK.--KarlB (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am opposed to both. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Related discussion A related discussion on a newly created article is here:
  talk) 08:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Looks like Karl is now looking to canvas: [37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42], [43] and [44]. Bjmullan (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, what I did was notify the editors who had recently editied 'History of the British Isles' as this article is clearly related. I notified them in a neutral fashion and did not base the notification on any particular pov. So, the notification was within the bounds. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia.--KarlB (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sensible comments of
  axe to grind here, unlike some other participants. Warden (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The fact that Johnbod is a British editor means that he takes a different view of the concept and terminology than an Irish editor. It is sad to see that some British editors choose to label those who are aware of other perspectives as having "an axe to grind". The core policy of

  WP:NPOV does base itself on dismissing the perspectives of nations which dissent from the dominant views within large nations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment The choice of Orange for the Republic of Ireland is very misleading if you are ignorant of unofficial systems of
  political colors. For Anyone who wants to argue the toss that is up to them. I may be a new Wikipedian BUT I have been a british taxpayer for a bloody long time and I disagree with Wikipedia's charitable "educational" status in my country. This is evidence that that the British taxpayer is subsidising a glorified facebook. "Politics of the British Isles" is gay but if it is kept I might get my money back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyTuppence (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikimedia UK is a UK Registered Charity, but not under the "educational" header. There is no "subsidy" from the UK government, although it's tiny office is exempt from local government property taxes ("business rates") and some contributions are tax-deductible, but that's the donors' money not the government's. Now where have I heard this nonsense before ....? Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...The subsidy is from me...the taxpayer...The donor gives £10 the Charity gets £12.50...thats £2.50 taken from the taxpayer...or from British Libraries (who incidently also provide encyclopedias free on the internet)...still if you have a references to support your nonsense theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyTuppence (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it (Gift Aid) only applies if the donor is a UK taxpayer, and it is his money that the gift aid payment represents, not that of taxpayers in general. A simple but important point. Of course if you live in the London Borough of Hackney you have whingeing rights, otherwise not. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic 2 person economy. We both earn £100 & each pay 20% tax to British Library which needs £40 for online encyclopedia. If you give £10 to Wikipedia £2.50 comes out of the joint library pot. If what you say were true, you would simply pay £12.50 to wikipedia, say nothing and pay your £20 tax. Instead the money is taken from the joint pot. If there were no scroungers there would be less whingeing. MyTuppence (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good point. If anyone has graphics skills and wants to replace the image and change the color, perhaps making it green would make more sense?--KarlB (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very, very, very strongly KEEP! Yet another pointless nationalistic attempt by some to waste the time of other wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthican (talk • contribs) 05:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a useful grouping that combines separate related entities into a single, easy to navigate grouping. Not to mention that it serves as a hub for the council and conference articles, not to mention the relations articles, which should really have been under a category like this in the first place. The whole "But British Isles is controversial" thing is just a specious argument that has no importance in regards to a category like this and, in fact, no validation as of yet for this category. Silverseren^C 19:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "politics of" categories are for continents, countries and national subdivisions. The British Isles is none of these, and the category's contents can be covered by Category:Ireland–United Kingdom relations‎ (which should be renamed to ROI-UK relations). Category:Politics of Ireland should also be deleted for the same reason (the ROI is covered by Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland). Number 57 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some geographical groupings get to have 'politics', but british isles doesn?:Category:Nordic_politics; Category:Politics of Central America; Category:Politics of the Caribbean; Category:Politics of the Channel Islands;Category:Political parties in the Middle East; Also, fwiw, I wouldn't recommend putting Category:Politics of Ireland up for deletion. I tried to delete Category:Hospitals in Ireland and almost lost a limb. --KarlB (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic in the Central America, Caribbean and Middle East categories as they are clear sub-continent groupings. Not so sure about the point of the Nordic one. As for your final comment, I'm not terribly surprised. All-Ireland categories and British Isles categories seem to me to used by editors on either side of the divide to impose their POV. The hospital example is particularly pointless; why would hospitals in two countries (or part of one) that just happen to share an island need a category to group them? Would we do the same for Malaysian, Indonesian and Bruneian hospitals on Borneo? I think (and hope) not. Number 57 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of hospitals (and I doubt this is the reason for the cat), Health is one of the 12 areas where Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland co-operate (under the Good Friday Agreement). Health is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and participation in all-island policy making and execution is a pre-requisite for devolution in Northern Ireland. That shouldn't be over-stated but it means the situation is a little more complicated that just "two countries (or part of one) that just happen to share an island". --

talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete all - as per nom 195.172.180.242 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

• note about POV on wikipedia If you browse through the category tree, you will overall notice the following:
  1. Politics of a continent (Category:Politics of Asia (ok)
  2. Politics of a sub-continental region Category:Politics of the Caribbean (Caribbean, Middle-east, etc) (ok)
  3. Politics of a grouping of countries based on common political structure (e.g. Category:Nordic politics, Benelux, etc (ok)
  4. Politics of an island Category:Politics of Ireland (ok)
  5. Politics of a country Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland (ok)
  6. Politics of a sub-region of a country Category:Politics of Texas (ok)
  7. Politics of a sub-part of a city (ok) Category:Politics of Brooklyn
  8. Politics of the British Isles (ZOMG POV/OR/SYN/DRAMA/MAKEY-UPPEY/NO-CONNECTIONWHATSOEVER/WHERE ARE THE SOURCES/BIASED/PROVOCATIVE/USELESS/POINTLESS/POINT-Y/DELETE-ON-SIGHT/EXTRA-NAVIGATION/etc)
• I also saw this interesting discussion:
  Politics of Oceania because it's "a geographical concept whose politics has little commonality." No-one says "we must delete Category:Political movements in Southeast Asia
  , because 'It places an epistimic slant on the category tree and presents a particular view of the world that (while not invalid) is of a certain and unshared point of view.' or 'There is a partially-shared polity between (country x) and (country y), but not between (country y) and the (small country z). The fact that a geographical term exists does not mean that it is relevant to all topics, and the creation of an irrelevant group which thereby introduces POV terminology is not neutral. ' or 'I don't get this category. For example is there some political relationship between the (small country z) and the (country y)? Seems quite OR to me.'
• In this discussion above, much was even made of the preposition 'of' or 'in' (for example, suggesting that 'of' was implying that British Isles was a single polity; but in the
  multilateral body that they are *all* members of, are you really going to recommend deletion of Category:Political movements of the British Isles (even though there are papers on the very topic (e.g. [45]), but let Category:Political movements in Southeast Asia live out its days in peace? Before !voting, please remember NPOV, and consider a rename instead of delete if you really don't like the title.--KarlB (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Karl, please try to reduce your verbosity and hyperbole, and please remove or replace the hyperbolic sub-head.

A few quick points: a) history and politics are not the same thing ("politics of the UK and India"); b) [[international relations] and politics are not the same thing; c) "shared history" is a concept which could be used to create all sorts of groupings (France/Germany/Switzerland, USA/Canada, Poland/Lithuania/Ukraine, Spain/Belgium/Netherlands), all of which frame issues through a particular perspective; d) a "politics" category relating to a purely geographical region does not carry the same baggage as one which marks the former geographical limits of what was an expansionist state; e) that while a term such as "Southeast asia" or "Oceania" is neutral between the countries involved, the same does not apply to the so-called "British Isles".

Instead of trying to denigrate the widespread objections to this category as "ZOMG", please AGF and try to understand why so many editors have objected to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as has been suggested elsewhere, if you object to the name, propose a rename, so we can move on... if you object to the geographical grouping, please describe clearly why the geographical grouping is problematic, because apparently the British-Irish council and the British-Irish parliamentary association think it's a dandy grouping of countries.--KarlB (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, in the course of this and other discussions, I and other editors have described at great length why the framing is inappropriate. If you have chosen not to read those objections, that is up to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all A non-existing political entity can't have foreign relations, parties or political movements. Seems to be a series of categories invented by someone who does not agree with the fact that the Republic of Ireland is an independent state and therefore strongly POV.

_talk 09:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• But it is not discussing a political entity, but the politics of a region, which includes the UK, the ROI, and a number of the smaller dependencies, which is not covered in just ROI-UK politics. Furthermore, the British Isles includes the Republic of Ireland and isn't making any determinations on its independence. Silverseren^C 09:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. Night of the Big wind unilaterally emptied these categories last night. I'm trying to fix it now, any help assisted. No matter what our personal feelings, categories should not be fully emptied while a CfD is ongoing.--KarlB (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It prove the point that you act out of a POV. Even Category:Political movements in Ireland is thrown in the Category:Political movements of the British Isles. And the "British Isles" is not even a political entity, so it is utter nonsense.

_talk 03:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comment. In this case, it is intended to be a geographical container, not a political entity, like Category:Political movements in Southeast Asia, etc. In addition, it has been proposed, and I have agreed, that it be renamed to Category:Political movements in the British Isles instead of 'of' to make it clear it is mostly a container category, but there are some movements that cross the isles (like unionism or loyalism for example). If you have a suggestion for a rename I would welcome it. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the only advice I have, is giving you a topic ban due to massive POV pushing and disturbing the peace.

_talk 11:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You missed

Ireland-Isle of Man relations, I got it for you. Silverseren^C 15:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

@Karl, it is not "the politics of a region"; it is discussing the international relations of a region. One of the many problems with your participation in these discussions is that you use the two terms interchangeably, whereas international relations is a subset of politics rather than a synonym for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was SilverSeren's comment above. You seem to focus recently on this difference between international relations and politics. I simply note that the parent category, Category:Politics of Europe uses the term politics. I had stated elsewhere that the disputed article could have been renamed international relations in the atlantic archipelago, i would have no problem with that; however this particular category includes both a grouping of domestic politics via categories, and multilateral/bilateral relations via articles (in the same way Category:Politics of Europe and Category:Nordic politics handles things), so I would argue that the broader politics is appropriate in this case, but as for the article a rename would be perfectly reasonable to clarify the scope.--KarlB (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: If ever there were a political statement in relation to Ireland it´s terming it part of this ridiculous "British Isles" concept, a term which first occurs in the English language used by an English imperialist (John Dee) trying to claim Ireland for the English crown in 1577. Even Francis Bacon used "Britain and Ireland" in his famous Essays. Never this "British Isles" jingoism. It´s a minority term that is only used, and pushed on Wikipedia, by British nationalists of the most jingoistic variety. You don´t need to be Irish to appreciate the clear and unequivocal politics of this term after centuries of British colonial rule over the Irish in Ireland.83.35.84.116 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The term is perfectly acceptable and a category is notable and worthwhile on this. The rant from the random IP above ^ shows what is really behind this attempt to delete the category. A small number of individuals refuse to recognise and respect the fact that there is an archipelago off the continent of Europe which is the British isles. Some people dislike this name because of a deep rooted hatred of the British, however it does not justify people to go around trying to censor and hide the British Isles, in what i can only describe as a crusade. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment FYI: related discussion recently closed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_in_the_British_Isles with result of KEEP. --KarlB (talk) 19:50, 16 June 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: No consensus to rename - jc37 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collection of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore

• Propose renaming Category:Collection of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore to Category:Collection of the Walters Art Museum

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article about the museum is at Walters Art Museum, not Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. It is usual to use the identical article name in when it is referred to in category names; we don't need to add further disambiguation to the category name. The category definition can indicate what city the museum is located in, which I believe is sufficient. (This one not an opposed speedy, but it likely would have been based on the experience of the two nominations below.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, indeed per those below. If you go the article you soon find out where the museum is; not so with a category. Note in particular how likely Category:Collection of the Walters Art Museum and Category:Collection of the Walker Art Gallery are to be confused, though they are on different continents. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible to write a short category description to indicate the location of the museum. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The distinction is necessary to avoid confusion...Modernist (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an approach that is never taken in other categories. Why are we making up special ad-hoc rules for art museums? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is not the function or role of a category title to identify the location of its subject unless the name is ambiguous. The category for the Metropolitan Museum of Art is Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, not Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York, United States or some slightly shorter disambiguated variation. Disambiguation of the type proposed by Johnbod goes against existing consensus established across many discussions and would affect thousands of categories; therefore, it should be considered as part of a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category names rather than implemented on an ad hoc basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming It makes sense to continue to name it for what it actually is to avoid confusion. I for one wouldn't have the least idea what was being categorized without it. We have gone much too harm is not disambiguating things that might be technically unique, but are not obviously so. Categories are supposed to be useful, and the name of the place helps the readers. I wonder at the response to Modernist that we do not try to avoid confusion. I was somehow under the impression that the goal of a navigation system was the exact diametrical opposite, to help people sort out confusion. I think this needs some sort of an explanation, for it seems about as contrary to common sense as one can easily get, and totally defeats the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To "name it for what it actually is" requires that we name it either Walters Art Museum or The Walters Art Museum. The ', Baltimore' portion is an artificial disambiguation, not part of the official name, that was introduced by editors. Furthermore, since it merely identifies the location of the thing and not its subject, it fails to identify "what [is] being categorized". I support disambiguation to avoid ambiguity, even if it requires that the category title be more specific than the article title, but ', Baltimore' does not help to differentiate the Walters Art Museum from some other museum of the same name. All that it does is provide additional information – information that is neither necessary nor suited for the category's title (it can, of course, be added to the category's description page).

  I think what Good Ol'factory meant with his response to Modernist is that the approach of indicating the location of a uniquely named entity (i.e., of disambiguation in an unambiguous case) when even the article does not is "never taken in other categories". If the article title included the city, or if there was more than one notable museum known as the Walters Art Museum, then naturally the category title would be disambiguated. However, neither instance applies in this case. I hope this clarifies any confusion... unless, of course, I misunderstood and GOF intended something else. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming per Johnbod and DGG, for clarity. DGG's point is particularly important: the the placename helps both readers and editors, and it also does not create an overlong title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of the Walker Art Gallery Liverpool

• Propose renaming Category:Paintings of the Walker Art Gallery Liverpool to Category:Paintings in the Walker Art Gallery

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The article about the museum is at Walker Art Gallery, not Walker Art Gallery Liverpool. It is usual to use the identical article name in when it is referred to in category names; we don't need to add further disambiguation to the category name. The category definition can indicate what city the museum is located in, which I believe is sufficient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - if you go the article you soon find out where the museum is; not so with a category. But should have a comma before Liverpool. Note in particular how likely Category:Collection of the Walters Art Museum and Category:Collection of the Walker Art Gallery are to be confused, though they are on different continents. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible to add a short category description in order to indicate the museum's location. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, at the top of the category it already states, "Paintings in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool" Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's important to clarify when names close to other institutions can cause mix ups...Modernist (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an approach that is never taken in other categories. Why are we making up special ad-hoc rules for art museums? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is not the function or role of a category title to identify the location of its subject unless the name is ambiguous. The category for the Metropolitan Museum of Art is Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, not Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York, United States or some slightly shorter disambiguated variation. Disambiguation of the type proposed by Johnbod goes against existing consensus established across many discussions and would affect thousands of categories; therefore, it should be considered as part of a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category names rather than implemented on an ad hoc basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming It makes sense to name it for what it actually is to avoid confusion. I for one wouldn't have the least idea what was being categorized without it. We have gone much too harm is not disambiguating things that might be technically unique, but are not obviously so. Categories are supposed to be useful, and the name of the place helps the readers. And as for one of the examples above, I would rename to Metropolitan Museum, New York City. Living there, I've never needed to specify the location, but I don't thing it's universally obvious. If it does no harm to be clear, we should be clear. That should be a basic principle of a navigation system. What are we trying to do, use the minimum conceivable number of characters to save on computer memory? (I recall working with indexing systems in the punch-card days, and then, such a rule was indeed necessary. We're not paper in the sense of paper books, and not in the sense of punched cards either. If redundancy helps readers to any extent, then we need it. An example like "...New York City, New York, USA" is a red herring--anything is absurd if carried to extremes. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To "name it for what it actually is" requires that we name it Walker Art Gallery (please also see the official website). The 'Liverpool' portion is an artificial disambiguation, not part of the official name, that was introduced by editors. Furthermore, since it merely identifies the location of the thing and not its subject, it fails to identify "what [is] being categorized". I support disambiguation to avoid ambiguity, even if it requires that the category title be more specific than the article title, but 'Liverpool' does not help to differentiate the Walker Art Gallery from some other museum of the same name. All that it does is provide additional information – information that is neither necessary nor suited for the category's title (it can, of course, be added to the category's description page).

  My example using the Metropolitan Museum was, of course, exaggerated, but only in its application and not its principle. Following the principle that we should identify the location, within a category title, of uniquely named objects, we would arrive at categories such as Category:Metropolitan Museum, New York City, Category:New York City, New York, Category:New York, United States and the like. It could be argued that all of these titles promote clarity and are not actively harmful, though I do believe that they are harmful because they result in longer and less manageable category names (which are more difficult for readers to find and editors to use) and in inconsistency between article and category naming (which reduces predictability for readers and editors, making it more difficult to find categories or to know what to name them). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having just recently met the web manager at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, he confirmed that, yes, they are always getting confused, & he ends up with web traffic intended for Liverpool. So my opposition to the nom is reinforced. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire issue is a matter for the article name, not for category names that refer to the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, though I would support renaming there, but it is generally agreed that category names do sometimes need to be clearer than article names, and I suggest this is one such case. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the only instances were there is "general agreement" (as opposed to no consensus or opposite consensus) on that point is for categories that are named exactly after an article. And even then, there is not always strong consensus on that point: I am generally of the opinion that category names can match article names in almost all cases. (One exception being situations where a category named after an article could be misinterpreted as a plural of another word; e.g., a category named after the city Tours.) But putting that issue aside, I am generally against the ad-hoc case-by-case judgment call disambiguation that is being advanced here, especially when it represents a deviation from naming trends adopted relatively widely in categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collections of the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney

• Propose renaming Category:Collections of the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney to Category:Collections of the Powerhouse Museum

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The article about the museum is at Powerhouse Museum, not Powerhouse Museum, Sydney. It is usual to use the identical article name in when it is referred to in category names; we don't need to add further disambiguation to the category name. The category definition indicates what city the museum is located in, which I believe is sufficient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per those above - if you go the article you soon find out where the museum is; not so with a category. But since it has come up, it would be good to define a position on the question of "Collections of ..." versus "Collection of ....". These are pretty randomly distributed, & very irritating to those who actually work in this area, as it is impossible to guess which will apply, you have to look first. Virtually all museums can be said to have plural collections as well as a single collective collection, so there is no real issue over meaning. But I strongly prefer the singular, as more usual in normal English, less pretentious, & more likely to be expected by users. So Rename to Category:Collection of the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney as a test case for renaming all "Collections of ..." categories that don't have a special case of some sort. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible to write a short category description to indicate the location of the museum. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, at the top of the category it already states, "Items in the collection of the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above...Modernist (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is not the function or role of a category title to identify the location of its subject unless the name is ambiguous. The category for the Metropolitan Museum of Art is Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, not Category:Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York, United States or some slightly shorter disambiguated variation. Disambiguation of the type proposed by Johnbod goes against existing consensus established across many discussions and would affect thousands of categories; therefore, it should be considered as part of a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category names rather than implemented on an ad hoc basis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming It makes sense to name it for what it actually is to avoid confusion. We have gone much too harm is not disambiguating things that might be technically unique, but are not obviously so. Categories are supposed to be useful, and the name of the place helps the readers. And as for one of the examples above, I would rename to Metropolitan Museum, New York City. Living there, I've never needed to specify the location, but I don't thing its universally obvious. If ity does no harm to be clear, we should be clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interest of brevity, I will not re-post the duplicate portion of my comments from above, and merely ask you to refer to them. I would merely like to add that, as in the two cases above, 'Powerhouse Museum' and not 'Powerhouse Museum, Sydney', is the official name of the entity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:42, 24 May 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam to Category:Rijksmuseum

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The main article is at Rijksmuseum. I am comfortable with matching the name of the category to the article name here and also believe it is most helpful to do so when we have a primary meaning, even if there are other possible meanings of the terms. Hence Category:Paris, not Category:Paris, France. If disambiguation were added, I would have thought given the article title that it would have been in parentheses, as in Category:Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, See List of Rijksmuseums, which begins "Rijksmuseum (English: State Museum) is the general name for a national museum in the Dutch language." The Amsterdam one gets the article as primary (for English-speakers - the Dutch WP article is "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam") but that's not good enough for a category. We are not talking about disambiguation here - "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam" is the official name, so it would be perverse, even by CFD standards, to use parentheses! Category:Rijksmuseum would be highly ambiguous (for the well-informed) with the existing Category:National museums of the Netherlands. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, personally, I do think the proposed name is good enough for the category, so it's a matter of subjective opinion. That's why I believe defaulting to the article name is the best solution in cases like this. I generally have no issues with applying the principles of
    WP:COMMONNAME to categories and I generally support the broad agreement between names in article and category space and believe that it best facilitates category navigation. I know users can disagree on these points with reasonable arguments, so I don't think there is any "wrong" position on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose per Johnbod, to avoid ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Clarifications of important institutions are important, as this is...Modernist (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to make category match article name otherwise why have C2D at all. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't give anyone any ideas—else C2D might indeed be abolished! Doing so would be a bad idea, as it would swamp the full CFD section with renames of that type. (Probably 98 per cent of them go through unopposed.) C2D is probably best seen as a criterion that applies by default unless a user explicitly disagrees with its application. In fact, that's really how all the speedy criteria are applied. If anyone opposes, they get moved to full discussions, even if the opposition is frivolous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – this one does seem to be ambiguous.
  Oculi (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - The titles of a topic category generally should match the title of its key article, but exceptions are warranted in cases where there is extreme ambiguity. I think that this is one of those cases. Parenthetical disambiguation – Category:Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam) – would be the natural form in this case, unless Rijksmuseum Amsterdam actually is the official name, in which case the current title is appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming It makes sense to continue to name it for what it actually is to avoid confusion. In this case, a reader's possible assumption that it was unique without the location would be wrong. The ordinary reader will not know, even in the case of famous museums, whether or not the name is truly unique, so it does no harm to tell him. This is not analogous to having an article be for the most likely subject--it that case it helps most readers; here it doesn't help anyone at all. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 24 May 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battles of the Tennessee River Reopening of the American Civil War to Category:Chattanooga Campaign

Nominator's rationale: These appear to be the same campaign. Don't see any reason to have two seperate campaign categories for the same campaign. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. From what I've read, these battles are just the opening engagements of the Chattanooga Campaign. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:55, 27 May 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: Rename to Category:Virgin Mary in art, and Split to Category:Depictions of Mary (mother of Jesus) at editorial discretion. There is clear opposition to a direct rename suggested by the nominator, but the split seems to be supported in the discussion. - jc37 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Depictions of the Virgin Mary to Category:Depictions of Mary (mother of Jesus)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The parent category is

Virgin Mary, but the article has since been moved to the NPOV name. It is possible to have artwork depictions of Mary that are non-Catholic and would not use the title/name "Virgin Mary". (I don't think this is the intent of the category, but if it is suggested that we are grouping depictions merely because the titles of the depictions include the name "Virgin Mary" or "Virgin", then this is overcategorization by shared name. I believe the intent of the category is to group depictions of Mary, the mother of Jesus, regardless of the title given to her or applied to her by the religious beliefs of the artist.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Very Strong Oppose In art, Virgin Mary is simply the appropriate and usual term, & the usual objections don't apply (not one of the several hundred works under this category is from a Protestant context). A vast number of these have "(the) Virgin" or "Virgin Mary" in the title; hardly any use a plain "Mary". There are 5 parent categories, all art ones except for Category:Mary (mother of Jesus), and the many child categories are also use it, or are things like Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child - what do you propose doing with that?! Ridiculous to have attempted a speedy here. It is "possible" to have notable Protestant depictions, but I know the contents of these categories pretty well, having just been re-arranging them, and I'm pretty sure that none of the articles are about such, except possibly for Ecce Ancilla Domini, whose author would certainly not have objected to the term (Dante Gabriel Rossetti had a Catholic & an Anglican parent, but since his sister became an Anglican nun, I imagine he was pretty High church insofar as religion interested him, which I think wasn't much). The sort of Protestant denominations who object to the term are exactly the same as those who object (privately, these days) to paintings of Mary, & simply don't produce them. We already have a sub-category Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary, which might be renamed using "Theotokos", except this is unclear to many English speakers, which can hardly be said of "Virgin Mary". The stuff about "shared name" is plainly drooling nonsense; what is shared is the subject, and the proper name for the subject in art is overwhelmingly "Virgin Mary". GO seems fixated on one part of the many trees of which this category is a part, and as always there is no regard for the appropriate art historical terminology. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one that this category is applying the title "Virgin Mary" to Mary inappropriately is Black Nativity, which is in a subcategory. It is very much a work that is "from a Protestant context". I haven't trawled through them all, but there may be others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a theatre show, that did not belong in a visual art category, & I've moved it to Category:Christmas onstage (not a sub-cat of this) where the other nativity plays are. You'd better look for another. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's that important to go through them all and find specific examples. Perhaps someone else would be interested in that approach. Even if it were what some users refer to as a "theoretical question", the issue arises, so I'm happy to let users decide based on the viewpoints that have been presented. I would appreciate it if you kept the uncivil attack-y comments away from this discussion, however ("drooling nonsense", etc.). Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of your nom hardly shows good faith, does it? My remarks were perfectly clear. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think calling the comments of another "drooling nonsense" is civil, well ... —I am of the opinion that you can "Very Strongly Oppose" something and yet not say things of that nature. If you insist on engaging in that way, then I'm going to abstain further, as I am not comfortable with it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sub-cats that also use Virgin Mary. Please say (2nd time of asking) what you would propose doing with Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child? Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third time by my count ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. There is no need for a heated debate here really. As the rationale against the speedy stated: "In art, Virgin Mary is simply the appropriate and usual term". I have seen many of the edits of Good Ol’factory before and they have almost always been constructive, so I think the intention here is just to have a good rename. But then in fairness, in his topic, John has a lot of experience, and what he said about "the appropriate and usual term" can be easily verified by searching through art books. Just search through Gardner's art books, Schiller, Jameson, etc. and you will see that term as the usual term. This is a very straightforward issue. History2007 (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It works as is - leave it alone and don't fix it...Modernist (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator to the neutral term, as used by the head article and the parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five parent categories, and one in a different subject area to the others. We should use the appropriate terminology for the subject area, which here is art. There is no single "head article" - which would be Virgin Mary in art; we have Marian art in the Catholic Church and various others, but the biography does not appear in the category, as a head article should. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this search and this other search may say something. Take my word for it, the way that term is used in art is "depictions of the Virgin Mary". But then you could do a few searches to confirm that of course, and again, looking through the key art books mentioned above will clarify that as well. "Depictions of the Virgin Mary" is the usual term used in art, as John said at the start of the discussions. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. One issue that seems to be taken for granted that I'm not sure is true is that this category should be limited to art in the traditional sense. The parent category Category:Depictions of people seems to include subcategories of depictions of people in popular culture, including books, plays, television, films, and other works. Currently, the nominated category seems structured as an "art" category, but if that is what it is it may need to be renamed to reflect that. Perhaps the creation of a broader parent category is the solution here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had been coming to think along those lines, this could be Category:Virgin Mary in art with most of the present content and parents, but films, plays etc moved to Category:Depictions of Mary (mother of Jesus) - I would have no problem with that, but the top art category should use VM. There is surprisingly little that is not art though. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is explicitly limited to art I can accept using the VM terminology because as pointed out that is the usual terminology in that area. My concern is applying the VM terminology to any depiction, which is what the category name suggests to me (independent of looking at the parent categories and contents). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is art except the 14 "Portrayals of the Virgin Mary in film‎" and some of the "Christmas art" sub-cat, which has theatre and light displays. It should only be necessary to move those two up. No pop culture category apparently. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "depiction" somehow imply a static image? So I am not sure if a movie is a form of depiction.... History2007 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of the word does have that connotation (at least). My point was just that the category Category:Depictions of people is not limited in this way. Perhaps a better word is needed for these categories that group things beyond static depictions, like films, plays, television, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would say the issue of
  Mary (mother of Jesus) is probably more NPOV, but I can see arguments for both names are really do not see that it matters much which name is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Part of me wants to say that movies can fit under the term "art". This is especially true since their are films that are sometimes called "art films". What do we mean by "art"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below next comment. That way lies madness. Johnbod (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate issues:

• The Virgin Mary/Mary (mother of Jesus) issue went through a requested move and a very long merge discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus) over a year ago and since then both the title and the redirect have been stable. There is probably no need to dance that dance again.

• There is no article on Virgin Mary in art because no one has written it yet - and it would need to be just an overview. There was a discussion on the Marian art article about Eastern Orthodox art vs Catholic art, and the differences were highlighted in that discussion. To do it right, someone needs to write an article on the Eastern Orthodox Icons, then an overview about the comparisons. The Protestants do not have much Marian art to speak of (and Muslims are mostly against religious artistic depictions, of course) and so that article would be 95% Catholic+EasternOrthodox. And based on the discussion before on that, there is need for an Eastern Orthodox article at some point. I will try to get to it by the end of the year, unless John writes it first.

• Are movies art? I would say they become less and less art every day... but that is probably not key to this discussion... History2007 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should use "art" in category names just for

visual art, and "the arts" for the full bunch, including film etc; there are many and various CFD precedents for this. Likewise "artist", though lots of categories that should use "recording artist" don't. Johnbod (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong oppose. I'm not quite sure how protestant terminology is classed as non-POV while Catholic terminology is classed as POV. I strongly suspect that a majority of the content involved in the article would refer to the Virgin Mary as the Virgin Mary, thus the title should reflect what the authors wrote. Also, wow, lots of hot discussions today!Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary (mother of Jesus) is not "Protestant terminology". It's as close as WP editors could come to a neutral descriptor of the person who was Jesus' mother. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose Not every painting of
  Blessed Virgin Mary.- choster (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That was one of my points as nominator; I would have thought your statement would support a rename, not be opposed to it. I must be misunderstanding what you mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that as a case for splitting the category, not for moving the existing contents to a more generic name. The contents are overwhelmingly of religious art, so it seems strange to me that we would choose less accurate terminology to tag it.- choster (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see what you mean now. Thanks! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I come from a Mormon background, and have to say that I most often say "The Virgin Mary". If we want soemthing that would be fighting words we would use Mary (mother of God) and reinvoke 5th century debates on the title "God bearer". Most (though not all) Protestants recognize the Virgin birth of Christ, and if I understand Islamic teachings correctly they teach that Jesus was born to a Virgin, only disputing whether this makes Jesus the Son of God. There are people who would dispute the Virgin birth, however granting someone a conventional title is not the same as recognizing that it is truthful. Some titles have become functional names. I really think people should create an article on The Virgin Mary/Mary (mother of Jesus) in art.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some things almost suggest this category maybe should be at Depictions of the Blessed Virgin Mary or that that category should be a sub-category of Category:Depictions of Mary (mother of Jesus). It looks to me that we should have both of those categories, and probably rename this one to Category:Depictions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article "Virgin Mary in art" needs to be there, and I hereby promise to do it by the end of 2012. But I really have to do the article on "Icons of the Theotokos" first. That is an interesting topic in its own right. After that the "Virgin Mary in art" article can happen. The problem is that even I work 72 hours a days on Wikipedia, I will still be 12 hours short... so it will just take time. I had promised myself to update a few really out of date computing articles, so I have to do those by mid-summer, then go back to art. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think it is clear enough as is. It's the usual non-technical name. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose. Political-correctness going absolutely, positively barking mad. Quote "It is possible to have artwork depictions of Mary that are non-Catholic and would not use the title/name "Virgin Mary"." unquote — name that particular hypothetical denominations, please. Anyway, we can always create separate categories of "Category:Depictions of the Theotokos" and "Category:Depictions of Maryam" for Orthodox and the rare Islamic/pseudo-Islamic depictions, respectively, to be used concurrently or separately. — KC9TV 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be upset about it. This started on May 21, is over 7 days now, and needs to close today with an "oppose" result. It is a very simple procedural matter now - debate is mostly over. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, certainly not getting my knickers in a twist! This is a strange one, this! Anyway, I must say that I might be smelling an atheist/secularist/humanist, or a general anti-religion, agenda at work here, if not also just a bit Orwellian. — KC9TV 18:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let [it] just close so we can move on without further excitement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To that, I have no objection. One probably must get out more, too, especially given the relatively short Summer that I get in my part of the World. — KC9TV 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I can say that there is no atheist/secularist/humanist/anti-religion agenda at work behind this nomination, as has been suggested. Please

assume good faith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said at the start, I have seen your edits for long, and their general goal has been to improve things. We did not agree on this category's name, but I do not see any negative intentions on your part at all. History2007 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I have been successful at hiding my more Orwellian goals behind a mask of having a "general goal to improve things". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Your cover is blown now. It will be in the NY Times tomorrow... front page... kidding. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The parent categories show that this category is presently meant for Catholic artwork, but your proposed rename would make it suitable for any depiction, regardless of its religious origins. Subjects such as Theotokos of Pochayiv aren't appropriate for this subcategory, but the proposed rename would unhelpfully expand the category's purview to include articles such as this, as well as an article (if it exist) about a painting by a heretical Muslim artist. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've kind of hit on the problem. Theotokos of Pochayiv is in a category which in turn is a subcategory of the nominated category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, the root cause of all this is the lack of 2 articles, one on "Icons of the Theotokos", the other on "Depictions of Mary". Those need to be written, and as I said I will do so by the end of the year, unless you want to do it first - be my guest. In the meantime, all of this category talk is putting make-up on ghosts. This is all talk, and encyclopedic content will be the eventual solution. Time for this to close. Now it is 10 days... History2007 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a deeper root of this is that essentially a more specific category (the nominated category) was created before the more general container category was created (something like the proposed category, though broader than "depictions"). That of course was a natural thing to do seeing as how the more specific category had far more content to add to it than the more general category. I think one of the general points that has come out of this discussion is that having both categories could be useful. I don't think it has been "putting make-up on ghosts"—it has clarified the situation quite significantly, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 31 May 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Action 52 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is about a multicart which was a commercial failure. The individual games on the cartridge are never going to get their own article so it's not clear what this category is supposed to contain beyond the main article. It currently also holds the article about the game developer but that's clearly inappropriate. Pichpich (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a serious issue. History2007 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Victims of abusive childhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion in this category is quite subjective. It's also broad, being defined as those who suffered from rape, domestic violence, or bullying. We have deleted Category:Rape victims in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's entirely subjective what counts as "abusive". Most of these people are notable for completely unrelated things, which is not the case for sister categories like victims of police brutality and torture victims. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Jafeluv, and per
  WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete just grouping rape victims with those who suffered from "bullying" is disturbing enough. Actually trating anything else on par with rape is disturbing. Some bullying is truly tramatic, but I do not think we are prepared to distinguish this from less tramtic, especially because in some cases it will turn into outcomes base classification, if person x committed suicide the bullying was tramatic, but in many cases this will be open to dispute, because while bullying in some cases is a cause for suicide it is never the only cause. Are we prepared to put people who were victims of statutory rape at age 17 in here? I also have a fear of some attempts to put people in this category as "rape victims" who according to the laws in force when they lived were not rape victims. This is a subjective category that will just invite people trying to push particular POVs to use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the heading makes this category even worse off. The people either 1-claim or 2-have been described. The worst thing is that the heading gives us no cut off for "childhood". Actually the heading read on its own makes it unclear if there is a cut off. If a high school senior is raped shortly after her 18th birthday still qualified. What if the rape occured in 1952 in the United States, when the legal age of adulthood was 21? On the otherhand, does it really make sense to use "childhood" for a 17-year-old college freshman, or maybe we would want to cap "childhood" at about 12, and have a seperate Category:Victims of abusive teenagerhoods or whatever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why do we not also include child soldier in this category? They would seem to have been another group that went though an abusive childhood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I put
  Sally Hemmings, is starting sexual relations with a much older man at age 15 or slightly less "abusive" "childhood", or is the combined fact that such relations between a master and slave were tolerated in her society and she never formally complained of them enough to avoid this category. Harriett Jacobs did formally complain of the attempts to rape her, so she clearly fits the having claimed abuse qualification prong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and Salt. No definition of abusive here would satisfy any editor. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 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.