Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 11



Transportation museums in the United States by state

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Transport museums in Alabama to Category:Transportation museums in Alabama
 * Category:Transport museums in Alaska to Category:Transportation museums in Alaska
 * Category:Transport museums in Arizona to Category:Transportation museums in Arizona
 * Category:Transport museums in Arkansas to Category:Transportation museums in Arkansas
 * Category:Transport museums in California to Category:Transportation museums in California
 * Category:Transport museums in Colorado to Category:Transportation museums in Colorado
 * Category:Transport museums in Connecticut to Category:Transportation museums in Connecticut
 * Category:Transport museums in Washington, D.C. to Category:Transportation museums in Washington, D.C.
 * Category:Transport museums in Florida to Category:Transportation museums in Florida
 * Category:Transport museums in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Transportation museums in Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Category:Transport museums in Hawaii to Category:Transportation museums in Hawaii
 * Category:Transport museums in Illinois to Category:Transportation museums in Illinois
 * Category:Transport museums in Indiana to Category:Transportation museums in Indiana
 * Category:Transport museums in Iowa to Category:Transportation museums in Iowa
 * Category:Transport museums in Kansas to Category:Transportation museums in Kansas
 * Category:Transport museums in Kentucky to Category:Transportation museums in Kentucky
 * Category:Transport museums in Louisiana to Category:Transportation museums in Louisiana
 * Category:Transport museums in Maine to Category:Transportation museums in Maine
 * Category:Transport museums in Maryland to Category:Transportation museums in Maryland
 * Category:Transport museums in Massachusetts to Category:Transportation museums in Massachusetts
 * Category:Transport museums in Michigan to Category:Transportation museums in Michigan
 * Category:Transport museums in Minnesota to Category:Transportation museums in Minnesota
 * Category:Transport museums in Mississippi to Category:Transportation museums in Mississippi
 * Category:Transport museums in Missouri to Category:Transportation museums in Missouri
 * Category:Transport museums in Nebraska to Category:Transportation museums in Nebraska
 * Category:Transport museums in Nevada to Category:Transportation museums in Nevada
 * Category:Transport museums in New Hampshire to Category:Transportation museums in New Hampshire
 * Category:Transport museums in New Jersey to Category:Transportation museums in New Jersey
 * Category:Transport museums in New Mexico to Category:Transportation museums in New Mexico
 * Category:Transport museums in New York to Category:Transportation museums in New York
 * Category:Transport museums in North Carolina to Category:Transportation museums in North Carolina
 * Category:Transport museums in North Dakota to Category:Transportation museums in North Dakota
 * Category:Transport museums in Ohio to Category:Transportation museums in Ohio
 * Category:Transport museums in Oklahoma to Category:Transportation museums in Oklahoma
 * Category:Transport museums in Oregon to Category:Transportation museums in Oregon
 * Category:Transport museums in Pennsylvania to Category:Transportation museums in Pennsylvania
 * Category:Transport museums in Rhode Island to Category:Transportation museums in Rhode Island
 * Category:Transport museums in South Carolina to Category:Transportation museums in South Carolina
 * Category:Transport museums in South Dakota to Category:Transportation museums in South Dakota
 * Category:Transport museums in Tennessee to Category:Transportation museums in Tennessee
 * Category:Transport museums in Texas to Category:Transportation museums in Texas
 * Category:Transport museums in Utah to Category:Transportation museums in Utah
 * Category:Transport museums in Vermont to Category:Transportation museums in Vermont
 * Category:Transport museums in Virginia to Category:Transportation museums in Virginia
 * Category:Transport museums in Washington (state) to Category:Transportation museums in Washington (state)
 * Category:Transport museums in West Virginia to Category:Transportation museums in West Virginia
 * Category:Transport museums in Wisconsin to Category:Transportation museums in Wisconsin
 * Category:Transport museums in Wyoming to Category:Transportation museums in Wyoming
 * Nominator's rationale: U.S. English usage of "Transportation", consistency with parent category. See also Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 21. --Vossanova o&lt; 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Wouldn't be my brand of English, but when in Rome...Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * rename per nom Rename to correct English name for US categories. Hmains (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FIFA World Cup losing squad templates

 * 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 delete; rename to Category:FIFA World Cup runners-up squad templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * fifa world cup losing squad templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category highlighting teams by performance. Darwinek (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Category:FIFA World Cup runners-up squad templates in line with other entries in Category:FIFA World Cup squad templates, such as Category:FIFA World Cup third place and fourth place squad templates. This is a category of templates, not articles. Cjc13 (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:FIFA World Cup runners-up squad templates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Second place is just the first of the losers. – PeeJay 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - whatever next, Category:FIFA World Cup third-place squad templates, Category:FIFA World Cup fourth-place squad templates etc. GiantSnowman 00:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. Snappy's proposal also makes sense to most of the commenters, but I don't think any of those categories are nominated for change. But this close can be used as a precedent for the changes Snappy describes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland to Category:Irish Government
 * Nominator's rationale: This category was created by an editor who had proposed renaming to  CfD 2011 Jan 22. The terminology of "executive branch" is an Americanism not used in Ireland, and this duplicate category should be merged; the earlier CFD was closed early because of the nominator's depopulation of  (as he has done with other categories).
 * I don't see the purpose of retaining when we also have, which follows the naming convention at WP:IRE-IRL.  However, removing the duplication is a first step on the road to a tidyup. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The category was created as a first step in the re-organisation of many categories that touch on the constitutional order of the Republic of Ireland. As was mentioned by user Snappy on the CDF discussion of Jan 11th, "The government of Ireland categories need a good debate on the category tree structure......The re-org of these categories has been due for a while." I agree with his assessment. In the same discussion, user BHG stated "Some category like this is needed, and it does need to be distinguished from previous govts". So I think that we're all in agreement that something needs to be done - it's broken and not fit for purpose. We can use this discussion for deciding what needs to be done if the nominator likes. A blanket block would not be in the interests of moving things forward. As I said at the time, "Rome wasn't built in a day": this new category is the first foundation stone in building the proper constitutional order of categories that is Rome. It would be a retrograde and destuctive thing to topple the structure before the foundations are even laid. Enough with the metaphors, but I would like to make one final comment about the insinuation contained in the nominator's rationale: "the nominator's depopulation of Category:Irish Government". I have done no such thing in creating the new category. All links remain in place - nothing has been de-populated. Only new links have been generated. This is an odious attempt to link other work to the current work.
 * Moving to the substance of the issue: the core of the nominator's ojection is that it adopts an American constitutional order. She makes this sound like a bad thing. Not only will this opinion surprise Americans, it will also raise eyebrows in most democratic countries of the world that have adopted the constitutional order of revolutionary America and France. The doctrine of the Separation of powers was largely develop by the French philosopher Montesquieu but he had the UK constitution in mind as his exemplar. The model is of course much older: "The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic.", so there is nothing particularly American about it. The article goes on to state that "The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary." While the United States Constitution explicitly depends on the doctrine, the absence of explicit statements in written does not mean that they not in fact have that constitutional order. The UK, most notably, does not even have a written document called "The Constitution", yet it too has the model, albeit in "a weak separation of powers" form. So the model is not even confined to overtly republican states like Ireland - even limited monarchies adhere to the doctrine. Itwould be tedious indeed to list all the countries that adhere to the order - a quick glance at Category:Executive branches of government is enough to show that it is a widely adopted categorical convention and not wild-eyed original research.
 * As Executive (government) makes clear, "Executive branch of government is the part of government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state bureaucracy". That explains why this explicit category name is necessary - to distinguish it from "government" in the more general sense: "In many countries, the term "government" connotes only the executive branch". This lays Ireland open to the charge of being one of those despotic states that wishes to blur the distinction as the category for the more general term is Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland while the category that, up to now, has been the vehicle for the executive branch is Category:Government of Ireland. Clearly the average reader could not be expected to differentiate the two categories. There is no clue in the two names to disambiguate them. The current naming schema goes a long way to removing this ambiguity. More confusingly still, the category Category:Irish Government also exists which contains almost identical material to Category:Government of Ireland. Of the three candidates for the job of collecting articles, I think that the cureent one - "Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland" offers the clearest description while opening up a schema for the remaining branches of government. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, this is not complicated. Under the Irish constitution, the Oireachtas and the judiciary are not part of the government.
 * The United States constitution views them as difft branches of govt, but that is not the terminology adopted by the Irish constitution. In Ireland, the "executive branch" is the only thing called "Government of Ireland". Those who choose to view Ireland through the doctrine of the tripartite separation of powers may like to apply that label, but it is not the Irish terminology ... and its application to Ireland also ignores the fact that the Oireachtas elects the members of the Government from its own ranks, so the US-style separation does not exist.
 * Rather than importing the terminology of a different structure, better to revert this creation of a new category, and have a wider discussion on how to structure the categories relating to the governance of Ireland.
 * Oh, and Laurel: stop whining about attention being drawn to your depopulation of categories. You did it two months ago in relation to this category, and you did it this week in relation to another category. So it's important to draw it to the attention of editors interested in this discussion, so that they can check whether you are doing it again here, especially since you chose to circumvent the previous CFD creating a new category with a minor variation on the name proposed before, rather than by proposing renaming.  If you don't want it mentioned, the solution is simple: stop depopulating categories, and sop doing end-runs around previous CFDs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your usual admixture of hauteur and viciousness - vintage BHG. You may, however, wish to peruse Wiki's own article on the Constitution of Ireland. You need delve no deper than the lead where you will read, to your chagrin, that "The Constitution of Ireland.... is the fundamental law of the Irish state. The constitution falls broadly within the liberal democratic tradition. It establishes an independent state based on a system of representative democracy and guarantees certain fundamental rights, along with a popularly elected president, a separation of powers and judicial review.". So hardly original research on my part then; the Bunreacht is firmly in the broad Montesquieu camp. If the categorical convention is good enough for Singapore, Serbia and Hong Kong, then it's good enough for Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, you should know by now that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the extract you quote from the article Constitution of Ireland is unreferenced. You are entitled to your view of the Constitution, but it is original research.
 * I'm you think it's "vicious" to draw attention to your long-standing practice of depopulating categories without consensus, then then the solution remains in your hands: stop doing it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - So Laurel Lodged agreed with my assessment quoted above, but instead of starting a debate on WikiProject Ireland, Laurel Lodged created yet another category.... Why? So we now have Executive branch of the Government of Ireland, Government of Ireland, Government of the Republic of Ireland and Irish Government! Laurel Lodged failed to get the Irish Government category renamed, so now has created a similarly named category instead. How many times does it have to be explained to this user that this is not how CfD works and this is not how Wikipedia works? Snappy (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's a bad idea to try following primary sources. They don't always mean what they may appear to mean, and trying to infer something about government structure from a weaselly article about constitutional supremacy is a particularly bad idea. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. No need to create a separate category using American terminology. The Irish Government is the Irish Government. The much larger UK (on which Irish government is based) doesn't need a separate cat for a fictitious "Executive Branch" (see Category:Government of the United Kingdom) so I fail to see why Ireland does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bunreacht source To cater for those who object to Wiki as a source, may I present Bunreacht na hÉireann - "Article 6 1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people..." So it's not a neologism of mine. The Constitution explicitly uses the term "governement" in the wider sense that I have described above. So it's not acceptable to use a sloppy, inaccurate shorthand that may or may not have common usage. Common usage is not a "sacred cow". The article could not be clearer - the threefold division is stitched into the Constitution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on the dangers of using one's own interpretation of primary sources to advance a position: to me, who freely admits knowing absolutely nothing about the Irish government, that passage merely says government has three type of powers – legislative, judicial, and administrative. It says nothing about their being assigned to three separate and distinct branches; for all the casual reader knows from that clause, Ireland could have a single monarch (presumably selected by God and the people) who exercises absolute power in all three areas. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal The point of Article 6 is not that it says the 3 branches are assigned to 3 different people or departments. The point is that the 3 are collectively called "Government". So if the parent is called "Government", how then can the child also be called "Government"? On the other hand, calling the child "Executive branch" leaves the term free for use by the parent. And I agree, it's entirely possible that 1 person could unite the 3 powers in his person, as King Louis XIV did. But that's not material: the point is that Louis would still be embodying 3 powers. The argument is about disambiguation, not political or constitutional theory. There are three candidates for the thing that is the executive branch of government: which of the 3 candidates most clearly makes this definition plain while leaving the reader in no doubt that there is a higher, overarching thing called "Government". Of the 3 candidate names, Category:Irish Government, Category:Government of Ireland or Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland, it is the last that best meets this goal IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 6.1 of the Constitution is poetry. Its purpose is to make a resounding declaration that sovereignty belongs to the people by gift of god .. but that declaration is promptly neutered by Article 6.2 which says that actually this right is irrelevant, because the god-empowered people can actually do only what the constitution allows. In other words, Article 6 appears to proclaim popular sovereignty, but actually establishes constitutional supremacy. It's much like article 45, which sets out a broad vision of social policy, but makes that vision unenforceable.
 * Tempting to slip into the sin of original research, isn't it? One man's verifiable source is another girl's weaselly article. But we don't have to be constitutional lawyers, it's sufficient that we act logically and in a way that a reasonable person would act. For that reason, I'll formulate an alternative proposal that meets these goals shortly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not actually. My point was that interpretation of primary sources (a form of WP:OR) is not a Good Idea.™ -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertion that an article of the basic law of the state is "poetry", is itself OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Revised proposal to remedy the errors of the original and to achieve a unified, coherent category tree.
 * Restrict the scope of the Category:Government of Ireland to just three categories – the Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland, Category:Government of Northern Ireland and a new category of Category:Government of Ireland pre 1922. This last would contain Lords Lieutentant etc dating before the attainment of independance. A useful precedent might be Category:Waterford.
 * Insert a scope descriptor to the Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland to make it clear that it encompasses all 3 powers of government, per the guiding scope descriptor. That is: “''This category sorts the categories of  government, that is, the executive, legislative and judicial branches, for the Republic of Ireland. The term government may also be used to refer to, and sometimes is part of the name of the executive organ. For the specific meaning, see category:executive branches of government."
 * Re-name Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland to Category:Executive branch of the government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that it is restricted to the Republic and not the whole country.
 * Upmerge Category:Irish Government to Category:Executive branch of the government of the Republic of Ireland which makes it clear that it is (A) the executive branch and (B) that it only covers the Republic, not the whole island.
 * Move the remaining contents of Category: Government of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Executive branch of the government of the Republic of Ireland, apart from the two sub-categories listed in 1 above. This will have the effect of putting a lot of articles into the category that should not be there. Pending the creation of the category proposed below, this temporary state of affairs should be allowed to continue. This would leave a vacant category until the next part of the scheme is executed.
 * Create a new category for those organs of the state that do not explicitly belong to any of the 3 branches but nevertheless are part of the state apparatus. This would be a wide container for those aricles and categories that ought not to be in Category: Government of the Republic of Ireland but which are there temporarily pending the full execution of this scheme. This would include semi-state companies, state agencies, authorities (e.g. the HSE) and sundry quangoes. The name might be Category:State agencies of the government of the Republic of Ireland.
 * Populate the now empty category per below making for the following hierarchy:
 * * Category:Government by country
 * * Category:Government of Ireland
 * * Category:Government of Ireland pre 1922
 * * Category:Government of Northern Ireland (which would have an independant link to Category:Government of the United Kingdom)
 * * Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland (which would have an independent link to Category:Government by country)
 * * Category:Executive branch of the government of the Republic of Ireland
 * * Category:Judiciary of the Republic of Ireland
 * * Category:Oireachtas (i.e. the legislative branch of the government for non Gaelic editors)
 * * Category:State agencies of the government of the Republic of Ireland.


 * Oppose "revised proposal". Laurel, have you read any of the discussion above? Your revised proposal shows no sign that you have, because it retains both the term "executive branch" (which nobody except you supports, and for which you offer no sources), and the American tripartite structure. You have offered no evidence from reliable secondary sources for the proposition that the Oireachtas and the judiciary are part of the Government of Ireland. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What a fussy wikipedian BHG is - she doesn't like wiki soources, doesn't like primary sources, and though I introduce a secondary source below, it is with a heavy heart as I know that that too will be found wanting. But here goes....In Attorney General .v. Paperlink [1984] 1LRM 373 Costello J. refused to consider whether a postal service organised on lines advocated by the defendants was one which met the requirements of the common good. He considered that these were matters for the Oireachtas:"“But to carry out the inquiry which the defendants ask me to perform and, therefore, make a determination on an alternative to the existing postal service, would amount to an unwarranted and unconstitutional interference with the powers of government exclusively conferred on the Executive and the Oireachtas… Just as the courts must not permit the legislature to interfere with the judicial function, so too they must be astute to see that they do not themselves depart from their constitutionally defined role”.'"  This points to 3 powers. I assume you know who Costello J is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:V and WP:RS. This isn't the place to raise your problem with them.
 * And once again you are rely on a primary source, in this case a High Court judgment. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose revised proposal - It still contains "Executive branch" which is wrong, yes executive power of the state is exercised by the government but the use of the term "Executive branch" is unknown in Ireland. Also the proposed tree puts the Oireachtas (National Parliament) under the Government which is totally wrong, and Judiciary also part of the government tree which is also incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 March 2011


 * Revised proposal - Snappy
 * My proposal, includes merging Category:Irish Government to Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland for clarity. The country tree would look like this:


 * Category:Republic of Ireland
 * Category:Irish law (possible case for new (sub) category Category:Law of the Republic of Ireland)
 * Category:Judiciary of the Republic of Ireland
 * Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland
 * Category:Oireachtas (National Parliament)
 * Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland (sub cat of Category:Government of Ireland, Government by country, Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland)
 * Category:Local government in the Republic of Ireland (etc.)


 * The government tree would look like this:


 * Category:Government by country
 * Category:Government of Ireland
 * Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland (would be instead of Irish Government cat)
 * Category:Government of Northern Ireland


 * Restricting the Government of Ireland category to just 2 subcats is problematic and it would need to contain other subcats and articles relating to pre-Independence all-Ireland issues, like Lords Lieutenant. Currently Dáil Éireann category is under Oireachtas category, which is correct but also under Government of Ireland category which is wrong. Oireachtas category is under Irish law category (correct) but also under the Government of the Republic of Ireland which is wrong. Snappy (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snappy makes a good point about "articles relating to pre-Independence all-Ireland issues" so I have amended my revised proposal accordingly. It's unclear to me though what categories would be under Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland in Snappy's government tree. Would the 3 powers (or my 4 suggestion) be listed? Or would the tree terminate at that point? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurel, as Snappy and I have both repeatedly pointed out to you, Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland includes the government. It does not include the judiciary and the Oireachtas, because they are not part of the govt.  This is explicitly stated in the post by Snappy to which you are replying; it would help if you had read it before replying. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Snappy's proposal. That succeeds in separating the govt of the Republic fro other govts on the island of Ireland, and avoids mislabelling the judiciary and Oireachtas as part of the govt. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Snappy's proposal following BHG's clarification of Snappy's intent. It fails to address the fact that a reader, in entering a chain of categories that explicitly says is for "... the categories of government, that is, the executive, legislative and judicial branches", would fail at the bottom of the tree to find any categories for the Judicial and Legislative branches of Government. Snappy's proposed schema clearly violates the parental scope. While the separation of the Republic from other Ireland categories generally is to be welcomed, the schema, as a unified whole, must be rejected.Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that includes an intro which adopts the structure and theory of of one particular state does not mean that this structure or terminology are appropriate for countries which do not use that terminology.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Snappy's Proposal. In governments based on the British system (of which Ireland is one) it is not normal to include the legislature or the judiciary as part of government. Therefore the executive arm (which is never actually called that) is "the government". Whatever your views on whether the legislature or judiciary are actually part of the government, they do not fall under the usual definition of government in these countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Supreme Court of Ireland disagrees with user Necrothesp's view. Firstly, Ireland's Constitution is not based on the British system. "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland". It is a Republican system of Government that is closer to ancient Rome, Greece and revolutionary France than Britain. And just because something does not carry an explicit label (such as "the Executive") does not mean that that is not what it actually is. But don't believe me - look a what the official website of the Irish Supreeme Court has to say "'The Courts established by Article 34 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Court, constitute the judicial organ of Government. Article 6 of the Constitution provides that all powers of Government - legislative, executive and judicial - derive from the people and goes on to state that 'These powers of Government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.' The Government is the organ of State exercising the executive power of Government, the two houses of parliament comprising the Oireachtas (of which the President is the titular head, in addition to her constitutional status as head of State) exercise the legislative power of government, and the courts established by Article 34 of the Constitution exercise the judicial power of government. The judicial power of government of those courts includes the power to review the compatibility of statutes with the Constitution and to judicially review subordinate legislation, decisions or actions of the Government or State bodies with a view to determining their legality and compatibility with the Constitution, and principles deriving from the Constitution such as due process.'" See Is this a secondary source or primary? Not that it matters - BHG will reject it anyway. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * a) it looks like a Primary source to me. b) It it refers to various functions of government, not to "branches" (which is a piece of American terminology you want to import); c) it says quite clearly that "The Government is the organ of State exercising the executive power of Government"; it does not refer to an "executive branch". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but rubbish. The Irish administrative system (not the Constitution, which, like all constitutions, is a document setting out fluffy and rarely achievable notions of future happiness, but the actual system) is clearly based on the British system. Just because Ireland has a president instead of a monarch is neither here nor there. It has no similarity whatsoever to the systems used in Greece, Rome or Revolutionary France and any pretension that it does is nothing more than romantic rubbish (although why you'd want to be romantic about the horrific excesses of Revolutionary France is beyond me). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, Ireland is like ancient Rome, Greece and Revolutionary France because they had a republican constitutional order. The UK has a limited monarchical constitutional order. So it is patently not true to say that the difference is neither here nor there. It is also like revoltionary France and America in having a written document, unlike the UK. Lastly, if you had read above, you'd have seen that the "father" of the tripartite division, Montesquieu, had the UK constitution in mind when writing his doctrines. So to that extent, it is true to say that the Irish constitutional order resembles the UK's. But it is more accurate to say that is most similar to those of the republican order. But let us not lose sight of the main point: all constitutional orders embody 3 powers of Government in general, whether or not they explicitly acknowelge it. To use your phrase, whether those powers are held in the hands of one man (like the despot Kings Louis XIV or George III) or formally split amongst different organs of State, "is neither here nor there". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you stop comparing the modern Irish state to slave owing societies where the voting franchise was limited to wealthy males, and later ruled by an absolute monarch? Also our so called republican system of government managed to function from 1922 to 1949 with the British monarch as head of state, and that includes from 1937 to 49 when the current constitution was in operation. Anyway, Here's more from supremecourt.ie:


 * "The Separation of Powers
 * The Constitution provides for a tripartite separation of powers: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. This ensures that no one organ of State may interfere with the functions ascribed to the other two. Articles 12 to 14 set out the functions of the President of Ireland, who is the Head of State. The powers vested in the President are largely ceremonial although several discretionary powers are also provided for under the terms of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the separation of powers the Courts exercise a constitutional function in reviewing the constitutionality and legality of actions of the other organs of State.


 * (i) The Legislature
 * As mandated by the Constitution, the Oireachtas consists of a bicameral chamber and the President of Ireland. The two Houses of the Oireachtas are Seanad Éireann (the Senate) and Dáil Éireann (the chamber of deputies). While Article 15 of the Constitution vests sole law-making power in the Oireachtas, this power is not unfettered as the Oireachtas is precluded from enacting legislation that is repugnant to the terms of the Constitution. Legislation that retrospectively creates an offence or which would provide for the imposition of the death penalty is similarly forbidden. Legislation may be initiated in either of the two Houses, with the exception of Money Bills and Bills to amend the Constitution which may only be introduced in Dáil Éireann. A Bill goes through various stages in both Houses before being sent to the President of Ireland for her signature, whereupon the Bill becomes an Act of the Oireachtas.


 * (ii) The Executive
 * The Executive is the Government of Ireland and is provided for in Article 28 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Government must consist of no fewer than 7, and no more than 15 members and includes the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who is the head of the Executive and his next-in-command, the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister).


 * (iii) The Judiciary
 * Articles 34 to 38 of the Constitution provide for the system of courts in Ireland and the trial of offences. Article 34 expressly states that "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by Judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution". Provision is made in Article 35 for the appointment and tenure of members of the Irish judiciary, who, under the terms of the Article "shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law." Under Article 35.4.4 of the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and the High Court can be removed from office solely by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas for stated misbehaviour or incapacity. The tenure of Circuit and District Judges is similarly protected by statute. In addition, under Article 35.4.5 of the Constitution the remuneration of a judge cannot be reduced during his or her term of office. The jurisdiction of any Judge depends on the jurisdiction of the court over which he or she presides."


 * It says there is a "tripartite separation of powers: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary". It also says "The Executive is the Government of Ireland", also called the cabinet. Therefore it makes it crystal clear that neither the Legislature nor the Judiciary are part of the Government of Ireland. It also says that judges are "independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law", i.e. not subject to the Government. Also note there is no mention of the term "Executive Branch", simply the Executive. Snappy (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I've just noticed that there is Category:Government in the Irish Free State category to add to the confusion. I see some merit in Laurel Lodged's proposal for a pre 1922 category but it needs to have a start date. Snappy (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TLDR
Sorry, but a whole lot of the above falls into TLDR for me. A category called "Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland" would be non-sensicle. There is no executive "branch" of the Government of Ireland, the government is the executive branch.

With regard to Snappy's proposal, which isn't bad depending on one's perspective, a problem with placing both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland under the same "Government by country" sub-category is that the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are not in the same "country" with respect to governance i.e. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and governance of NI is a subsidiary of the governance of the UK, whereas the Republic of Ireland is a independent state. Also, there is no need for "Government of the Republic of Ireland". There is only one "Government of Ireland" and that is what it is universally known as.

(There is a contrast here with Category:Politics of Ireland, which arguably is muddier and can be seen both from the point of view of solely the 26 county state and the island of Ireland.)

I suggest the following:


 * Category:Government by country
 * Category:Government of Ireland (would be instead of Irish Government cat)
 * Category:Government of the United Kingdom
 * Category:Government of Northern Ireland (alongside government of Scotland, Wales, etc.)

A possibly better name for the NI category might be Category:Governance of Northern Ireland - since NI doesn't at present have a body known as its "government" and the category might be confused with being about the historical Government of Northern Ireland - but depending on the wider context of the categories that may not matter.

(Mind you, there are quite a number of pages under Category:Government of Ireland that do no belong for similar reasons. For example, Oireachtas and Irish Ombudsman are not a part of the Government of Ireland. Many of those pages should be shifted out to Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland.)

I presume in all of this that these categories are about contemporary matters and not historical ones. If they are about historical ones, given the shifting borders of Europe over the centuries, it would be impossible to neatly categories historic states and governments according to todays borders/regions/countries. --RA (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [Adds] With regards to some comments by Laurel Lodged, he/she is not necessarily wrong. It depends on what we mean by (the) "government". Do we mean the actual government (i.e. the executive organ of state)? Or, when we say "government", do we we mean "governance"? Looking through these categories, I think what is meant is "governance".
 * A "government" is a specific body that governs. "Governance" is the actions and manner of governing (cabinet membership, tax collecting, legislation, justice, the civil service, etc.). It is not grammatically incorrect to say "government" when one means "governance" but for clarity it might be better if we said "governance" when we mean "governance" and saved "government" for when we mean the executive branch of state.
 * Therefore, I think for clarity all of these categories should all be moved:
 * Category:Government of XXX &rarr; Category:Governance of XXX
 * (Another way around the problem might be to say Category:Government in XXX.)
 * --RA (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Surf groups

 * 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) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Surf groups to Category:Surf music groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent Category:Surf music and clarify that it is for musical groups and not groups of surfers. Lafe Smith (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT in African American culture

 * 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) 00:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:LGBT in African American culture to Category:LGBT African American culture
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "in" is not needed. LGBT is not some separate intrusion on African American culture. The two cultural components co-exist. Lafe Smith (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: There are a number of categories that begin with "LGBT in..." Would your same interpretion of the word "in" also apply to all those other categories? RevelationDirect (talk)
 * The other "LGBT in" categories appear to all be for places; this is the only one that's for a population segment or culture within a place. I suppose they ought to be something like "LGBT culture in" but that's outside the scope of this nomination. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Georgia-USA members

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Georgia-USA members to Category:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) members
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the project is WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) and the main article is Georgia (U.S. state). The category appears to have been originally named Category:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) members, but was changed last June. No tag on the category page points to a precious CFD discussion, nor is there any discussion of the rename at the category's own talk page. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Medical Museums in Germany

 * 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: go ahead, but lowercase "museums".--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * '''there is a very good overview at http://www.zbmed.de/service-und-benutzung/medmuseen.html that I want to put into Wikipedia, starting with the Category Medical Museums in Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digicmb (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Go ahead – but name it Category:Medical museums in Germany, using Category:Medical museums in the United Kingdom as a model. Occuli (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Television episodes by director

 * 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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Television episodes by Justus Addiss to Category:Television episodes directed by Justus Addiss
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Television episodes by so-and-so is vague and needs "directed" for clarification. Follows convention of categories created under Category:Films by director. This is an umbrella nomination to rename all the recently created categories below in a similar fashion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Television episodes by Alan Alda
 * Category:Television episodes by Gillian Anderson
 * Category:Television episodes by Allan Arkush
 * Category:Television episodes by William Asher
 * Category:Television episodes by Mario Azzopardi
 * Category:Television episodes by Reza Badiyi
 * Category:Television episodes by Richard L. Bare
 * Category:Television episodes by Adam Bernstein
 * Category:Television episodes by Abner Biberman
 * Category:Television episodes by Bruce Bilson
 * Category:Television episodes by Noel Black
 * Category:Television episodes by Richard Boone
 * Category:Television episodes by David Boreanaz
 * Category:Television episodes by Zach Braff
 * Category:Television episodes by John Brahm
 * Category:Television episodes by Marc Buckland
 * Category:Television episodes by LeVar Burton
 * Category:Television episodes by David Butler (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Butler (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Bruce Campbell
 * Category:Television episodes by Steve Carell
 * Category:Television episodes by David Carson (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Gilbert Cates
 * Category:Television episodes by Martha Coolidge
 * Category:Television episodes Jackie Cooper
 * Category:Television episodes by Wes Craven
 * Category:Television episodes by Joe Dante
 * Category:Television episodes by Peter DeLuise
 * Category:Television episodes by Richard Donner
 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Downey, Sr.
 * Category:Television episodes by David Duchovny
 * Category:Television episodes by Michael Engler
 * Category:Television episodes by Jonathan Frakes
 * Category:Television episodes by William Friedkin
 * Category:Television episodes by Ricky Gervais
 * Category:Television episodes by Kenneth Gilbert


 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Gist
 * Category:Television episodes by Lesli Linka Glatter
 * Category:Television episodes by Les Goodwins
 * Category:Television episodes by Alex Graves
 * Category:Television episodes by David Greene
 * Category:Television episodes by John D. Hancock
 * Category:Television episodes by Douglas Heyes
 * Category:Television episodes by Lamont Johnson
 * Category:Television episodes by Winrich Kolbe
 * Category:Television episodes by Ted Kotcheff
 * Category:Television episodes by John T. Kretchmer
 * Category:Television episodes by Buzz Kulik
 * Category:Television episodes by Perry Lafferty
 * Category:Television episodes by Les Landau
 * Category:Television episodes by John Landis
 * Category:Television episodes by Hugh Laurie
 * Category:Television episodes by Bill Lawrence
 * Category:Television episodes by Doug Lefler
 * Category:Television episodes by Mitchell Leisen
 * Category:Television episodes by Ida Lupino
 * Category:Television episodes by Paul Lynch (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Jim McBride
 * Category:Television episodes by Paul McCrane
 * Category:Television episodes by Michael McDonald
 * Category:Television episodes by Andrew McLaglen
 * Category:Television episodes by Norman Z. McLeod
 * Category:Television episodes by Gail Mancuso
 * Category:Television episodes by Peter Medak
 * Category:Television episodes by Don Medford
 * Category:Television episodes by Stephen Merchant
 * Category:Television episodes by Andy Mikita
 * Category:Television episodes by Lewis Milestone
 * Category:Television episodes by John Milius
 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Ellis Miller
 * Category:Television episodes by Christopher Misiano
 * Category:Television episodes by Ralph Nelson
 * Category:Television episodes by Joseph M. Newman


 * Category:Television episodes by Christian Nyby
 * Category:Television episodes by Gerd Oswald
 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Parrish
 * Category:Television episodes by John Tiffin Patterson
 * Category:Television episodes by Sam Peckinpah
 * Category:Television episodes by Montgomery Pittman
 * Category:Television episodes by David Platt (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Ted Post
 * Category:Television episodes by John Rich (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by James Roday
 * Category:Television episodes by Stuart Rosenberg
 * Category:Television episodes by Boris Sagal
 * Category:Television episodes by Richard C. Sarafian
 * Category:Television episodes by Joseph Scanlan
 * Category:Television episodes by Thomas Schlamme
 * Category:Television episodes by Tony Scott
 * Category:Television episodes by Ralph Senensky
 * Category:Television episodes by Don Siegel
 * Category:Television episodes by Elliot Silverstein
 * Category:Television episodes by Jack Smight
 * Category:Television episodes by Kevin Sorbo
 * Category:Television episodes by Michael Spiller
 * Category:Television episodes by David Steinberg
 * Category:Television episodes by Robert Stevens
 * Category:Television episodes by Patrick Stewart
 * Category:Television episodes by Paul Stewart (actor)
 * Category:Television episodes by Quentin Tarantino
 * Category:Television episodes by Alan Taylor (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Brad Turner (director)
 * Category:Television episodes by Tim Van Patten
 * Category:Television episodes by Tommy Lee Wallace
 * Category:Television episodes by Claudia Weill
 * Category:Television episodes by Don Weis
 * Category:Television episodes by Tom Welling
 * Category:Television episodes by John Wells (TV producer)
 * Category:Television episodes by Martin Wood


 * Question - generally speaking are television episodes the subject of scholarly or critical attention based on who directed them? Could a reliably sourced article be written about either the episodes or the director that is about the distinguishments between episodes of a series directed by one person as opposed to another? Is there sourcing that indicates that, say, a Star Trek franchise episode directed by Jonathan Frakes is so significantly different in style or tone from one directed by Michael Dorn that they warrant encyclopedic attention on that basis? Is TV episode by director encyclopedic in the first place? I tend to think not and I tend to see very little benefit from this category structure so I tend to say delete the lot of them. List episodes in the director's articles or if that's not feasible list them in a separate article. Lafe Smith (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no argument against that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the Alan Alda category, most of these episodes were written and directed by the person so renaming the article for the director may spawn a new category for the episode writer. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History books by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus. The whole tree needs to considered to thrash out the aim and purpose of the cats. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History books by country to Category:to be determined by consensus
 * Nominator's rationale: As per conversation with Occuli, organizing "by country" is ambiguous. Are we referring to the country of origin of the author? Where the book was first published? Topic of the book?(if so there is already Category:History books about countries) Language the book was writtin in, in cases such as Category:Hungarian history books, Category:French history books, and Category:Japanese history books? We should specify what it is that is meant in stating "by country", rename appropriately, and then move and rename subcategories as is appropriate. Additionally, as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_11 the term country itself is ambiguous and the category should likely be changed to something like "by state". MRDXII (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I agree with the nom that Category:French history books (say) is ambiguous, particularly as the nom has created Category:History books about France (which to me is the most obvious meaning for 'French history books', namely books about French history – eg Category:Scottish history books opens with 'Books about the history of Scotland'.). We have and  but not . It is perhaps thought that the language of a history book is not a defining characteristic. There should be 'books about the history of foo' (under some name) and 'fooish history books' should redirect to this. I am not myself convinced of the need for 'history books by nationality of the first publisher' etc. Occuli (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll repeat the argument for "History books by nationality of author/publisher" from our discussion for the benefit of people here. The idea is that history is never written from a neutral perspective, thus the author's biases are defining characteristics of history books. Now while biases are tricky to show or prove, sorting by nationality of author (and to a lesser extent where the book was published) is a handy way of indicating at least one potential bias of the author. For example, histories of the Middle East written by Israeli or Palestinian authors, histories of the British Isles written by Scottish, Irish, English, or even French authors, and histories of most of the Americs, Africa, and Asia written by those of European/colonial nationality or of local nationality will all likely differ, sometimes drasticly, sometimes slightly, in their narratives and content. The broader point is that if we don't recognize biases we are essentially saying they do not exist (or at least are not important), and whatever is the most widely accepted history is the correct one. But there is no right or wrong history, only different perspectives on the same events. History IS bias, therefore biases like nationality are defining characteristics of history books. I tried taking the same stance with categorizing "by religion" (Idea there being that something like a creationist take on world history may be different then a secular one based on understanding of geology; Jewish, Christian and Muslim histories of the Middle East being different, etc.) and got no play there (although that was also due in part to empty cats) so I understand this idea isn't palatable for most, but noneless there it is for consideration. Myself personally I am fine with just making "Fooian history books" categories redirect to their respective "History books about Foo" categories as suggested by Occuli. As well, I agree that sorting by language does not seem to be all that important to those Wikipedians who have come before me(that is, almost all of you). MRDXII (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:History books by perspective Until I read MRDXII's comments I didn't find Category:History books by country to be ambiguous, I assumed that it meant Category:History books about countries. Not only is it ambiguous, but it means something else entirely from what I thought. For example, [:[Thomas Cahill]] is an American scholar and writer, but his book How the Irish Saved Civilization is listed under Category:Irish history books not because it was published in Ireland or written by an citizen of the Republic of Ireland, but because Cahill had an Irish perspective.  But now that I look at the various items under Category:History books by country, I think that there probably has been some mis-categorization taking place.  For example, Afghanistan in the Course of History (a book) is categorized correctly under Category:Afghan history books as it is from an Afghan perspective, but it also should have been categorized under Category:History books about Afghanistan (a yet to be created category) which is what I suspect the editor thought he/she was doing by placing it in Category:Afghan history books.  Death by a Thousand Cuts (book) is under Category:History books about China but not Category:Canadian history books. Perspective is indeed a subjective standard, but normally, I want history books about Scotland, not necessarily the Japanese perspective on Scottish history, as interesting as that may be.  If we wish to be clear, then (1.) the introductions to both Category:History books by perspective and Category:History books about countries need to cross-reference each other, as do their subdivisons; (2.) the existing subcategories under Category:History books by country should be renamed with the word "perspective".  --Bejnar (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment First, a side note about Death by a Thousand Cuts (book) and any other title I've been moving around: I've been intentionally not adding them to Category:History books by country until this discussion is sorted out. I'm not necessarily opposed to a "by perspective" type category, but we would have to clarify and define what a perspective is. If we just generally mean any kind of bias we can think of, then that leaves it pretty open for subcats, we could have "by nationality of author", "by religion of author", "by political affiliation of author", "by height of author", "by sock colour preference of author" and whatever else without any indication as to what counts as a noteworthy bias or not. And as I've seen in this discussion and in discussing "by religion", people don't seem that favourable to considering bias as a determining factor at all. Further, like you said, these things are subjective. How do we know Cahill's perspective is Irish and not American? Does he explicitly state so anywhere, or is that merely a judgement call? I don't see how we can make those judgement calls and not be arbitrary and I don't see any "by perspective" categories becoming very populated if we rely on citing the authors stating biases themselves. By nationality of author or country of first publication are both pretty cut and dry things to consider, but beyond that any sense of perspective or bias is tricky to figure out, nevermind confirm and agree upon. MRDXII (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the only basis of utility for this category is perspective, the others being, as MRDXII points out by example, meaningless, then if perspective is "too hot to handle" the appropriate thing is to eliminate this category and all of its subs. Note that the previous sentence is in the subjunctive. If perspective is not "too hot to handle", then I reiterate my renaming proposal. Examining the books listed in the subs of this category, they do seem to reflect the given perspective (Afghan, Pakistani, Irish) even if they do not necessarily follow any "country" basis, the Irish example above, Chinese books in English published in London with British commentary, etc. It seems obvious that it is not about "nationality of author or country of first publication" although that would be a bright-line rule. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this mess for now. The purpose of these categories is unclear and capable of many widely difft interpretations, so inveitably they appear to have been applied inconsistently. There is nothing here to salvage, and most of the sub-categories are lightly populate; they should be deleted.  However, none of the sub-categories have been tagged, this discussion cannot delete them.  I suggest that this discussion be closed to allow a new group nomination to delete them all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History books by subject

 * 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) 13:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History books by subject to Category:History books by topic
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with Category:Books by topic, which it is a subcategory of. Additionally, there is no Category:Books by subject and the convention of "X by topic" seems to be more widely accepted. MRDXII (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Rename per nom. More consistent naming format. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economic history books

 * 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:Books about economic history, revisit capitalisation if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Economic history books to Category:History books about economics
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with the X about Y convention of Category:History books by subject and other "X by subject" categories. Was opposed in speedy renaming, so bringing it here. MRDXII (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – rename, but to Category:Books about Economic history. This is a subdiscipline of economics rather than history; the article is Economic history and there is . The present name is ambiguous, as demonstrated by this nom. Occuli (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about creating a separate Category:Books about Economic history (discipline) for books about the discipline itself, and have that in Category:Books by topic, and wherever else, and have this category already under Category:History books by subject be Category:History books about economics and be for history books where economics is a subject, topic, or theme, as that is the parent category? MRDXII (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Books about economic history per Occuli to remove ambiguity (though as an aside, economic history is  a subdiscipline of both history and of economics). It seems to me that the present convention of Category:History books by topic, and should be reviewed as a whole, because it doesn't work for cases where the topic is a compound form. E.g. we have  because history of science is a topic of its own -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Labor history books

 * 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:Books about labor history, revisit capitalisation if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Labor history books to Category:History books about labor
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with the X about Y convention of Category:History books by subject and other "X by subject" categories. Was opposed in speedy renaming, so bringing it here. MRDXII (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – rename, but to Category:Books about Labor history. The article is Labor history (discipline) and there is . (This is a subdiscipline of History so these are history books, but 'history books about labor history' is unnecessary.)  Occuli (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about creating a separate Category:Books about Labor history (discipline) for books about the discipline itself, and have that in Category:Books by topic, and wherever else, and have this category already under Category:History books by subject be Category:History books about labor and be for history books where labor is a subject, topic, or theme, as that is the parent category? MRDXII (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Books about labor history per Occuli, but with capitalisation fix. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legal history books

 * 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:Books about legal history, revisit capitalisation if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Legal history books to Category:History books about law
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with the X about Y convention of Category:History books by subject and other "X by subject" categories. Was opposed in speedy renaming, so bringing it here. MRDXII (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Books about Legal history (or should it be 'legal history'?). The article is Legal history and there is . Occuli (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about creating a separate Category:Books about Legal history (discipline) for books about the discipline itself, and have that in Category:Books by topic, and wherever else, and have this category already under Category:History books by subject be Category:History books about law and be for history books where law is a subject, topic, or theme, as that is the parent category? MRDXII (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Books about legal history per Occuli, but with capitalisation fix. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military history books

 * 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:Books about military history, revisit capitalisation if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Military history books to Category:History books about military
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with the X about Y convention of Category:History books by subject and other "X by subject" categories. Was opposed in speedy renaming, so bringing it here. MRDXII (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Books about Military history (or should it be 'm'?). The article is Military history and there is . Occuli (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about creating a separate Category:Books about Military history (discipline) for books about the discipline itself, and have that in Category:Books by topic, and wherever else, and have this category already under Category:History books by subject be Category:History books about military(or some other better "about X" as I find "about military" to be vague) and be for history books with a military subject, topic, or theme, as that is the parent category? MRDXII (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Books about military history per Occuli, but with capitalisation fix. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of science books

 * 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:Books about the history of science, revisit capitalisation if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History of science books to Category:History books about science
 * Nominator's rationale: To keep in line with the X about Y convention of Category:History books by subject and other "X by subject" categories. Was opposed in speedy renaming, so bringing it here. MRDXII (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename but to Category:Books about the History of science (or should it be 'h'?). The article is History of science and there is . Occuli (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about creating a separate Category:Books about the History of science (discipline) for books about the discipline itself, and have that in Category:Books by topic, and wherever else, and have this category already under Category:History books by subject be Category:History books about science and be for history books where science is a subject, topic, or theme, as that is the parent category? MRDXII (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Books about the history of science per Occuli. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History books about countries
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History books about countries to Category:History books about sovereign states
 * Nominator's rationale: Two reasons: 1) the term "country" is ambiguous as the term is necessarily only a geographic one according to Country, but is also used for political entites, switching to something like sovereign states would rectify this, 2) to broaden this category to include all forms of statehood such as nation-states, city-states, duchies, empires, etc., rather than having to try to define exactly what a "country" is or isn't. MRDXII (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – there are hundreds of 'by country' categories (cf Category:Categories by country) so any ambiguity has not been unduly troubling so far. Occuli (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fair enough, although I still think it is a legitimate semantic point, and that appeals to popularity are not arguments, I can't deny that "by country" rather than "by state" is widely accepted. So now I guess the question is what do we do with categories like Category:History books about Muscovy, Category:History books about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and any others that will creep up, say about city-states or empires? Just leave them all individually in Category:History books by subject to build up there? Or do we go ahead and create a separate Category:History books about states anyway and specify as subcategories whether they are about empires, city-states, nation-states, etc., and if so, then where does Category:History books about countries fit in and how do we decide what is a state but not a country and vice versa? To me the term country is vague and shouldn't be used. Is England a country, or is the United Kingdom a country? Is Russia a country, or was the USSR a country? What about the Roman Empire or the Ming Dynasty? To me simply "state" is the most inclusive term and within that we may specify what types of states we are referring to. MRDXII (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Competing and overlapping understandings of "country", "state" and "nation" have led to endless controversy in articles on the constituant countries of the UK and spilling that into categories doesn't seem like the way to go. The least bad is the present "country" and if ain't broke, best left unfixed. AllyD (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - So the examples I listed(Roman Empire, U.S.S.R., Ming Dynasty, Muscovy, etc.), and any and all other state designations(city-states, empires, duchies, etc.) are considered countries? State = Country? Everyone holding me to that? MRDXII (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Books about the history of the Russian Empire and Soviet Unuion, such as the ones mentioned above, could go in Category:History books about Russia, as Russia has generally been the name used for the country. Similarly for the Ming Dynasty, use Category:History books about China. It would also be possible for entries to go in more than one category if it is about more than one country. Cjc13 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep - Ok, so the idea is to use "about country" for the current geographic designations (modern-day Russia, China, etc.), and then have any and all states that have occupied that particular territory over the course of time as sub-categories(Muscovy, Russian Empire, U.S.S.R., etc. under Russia, Ming Dynasty, etc. under China)? I can work with that, all that it would really entail is that certain broad-based categories (say, "about the Roman Empire") would be subcategories of a variety of categories (most European "about country pages" for the Roman Empire) rather than their own "about country/state" category, as well as things like city-states and duchies being subcategories of modern-day countries solely because of location, even if they did not have a hand in the creation of the modern state. But that does make sense and I feel silly for not just doing that in the first place as it seems somewhat obvious now. MRDXII (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Summer Camps serving disabled children
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Summer camps for children with special needs. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Summer Camps serving disabled children to Category:Summer camps for children with disabilities
 * Nominator's rationale: The children themselves are not "disabled". They are children who also have disabilities.  Additionally, a couple of wording and capitalization fixes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it should be Summer camps serving children with special needs, according to the summer camp industry, the health industry, childrens help groups and various websites like http://www.childrenwithspecialneeds.com For example, diabetes is not a disability, but does qualify as a special need.  I was in a hurry to finish a reorganization of the mess on wikipedia, and I did not research a proper name.  Sorry about that folks. Summer Vacation (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, we should call it Category:Summer camps for children with special needs. I am not too picky on what the exact words are, as long as my points in the nomination are addressed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Do it.  Get it done.  How many votes do we need?  What if all of the administrators take off and fly to the moon?  Do we still have a quorum?  Can the two of us sneak in a change and not piss off the unions?  Oh boy, this looks like trouble brewing.  Hehehehehehehehe. Summer Vacation (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude. I'm agreeing with you.  Quit while you're ahead.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I get it. You have no sense of humor whatsoever! Come on, you had to laugh at that joke, and the fools in Wisconsin.  They waited for weeks for the Democrats to come home, then somebody suddenly realized that they could just do it themselves.  Is that funny or what?  And maybe this sounds a little like the nightmare at Wikipedia.  Ya think? BTW, the summer camps prefer to use the word serving, as in humanitarian service.  We only use the word for when we specify Girls or Boys.  We are split over using for Christians as apposed to serving Christians, since many of the camps are low to zero cost for the poor.  But I am certain that you will ignore the wishes of the summer camp industry and just do what YOU want. Summer Vacation (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that some of the camps serve families. And in the case of Camp Kesem, the parents have cancer, not the children. Which is why Summer camps serving children with special needs is better than Summer camps for children with special needs. Summer Vacation (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support renaming to Category:Summer camps for children with special needs. I've put a strike through the originally proposed category because the nominator suggested this alternative. Themeparkgc   Talk  00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Azerbaijan–Pakistan relations
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * azerbaijan–pakistan relations


 * Nominator's rationale: DeleteWe don't normally create categories for bilateral combinations. and this one only has one article so it's rather pointless having a category. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:This American Life personalities
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. If necessary create a better one. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * this american life personalities


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorizing people based on their contributions to a radio show. According to WP:Overcategorization this is not a proper category. Lafe Smith (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; looks to be a performer by performance category.- choster (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename & Purge or Delete & I'll Create a Better Cat: This category is purely garbage. Clearly a performer by performance category, and not an especially well-defined one ("personalities"?). But, about a third of these people are This American Life staffers, editors and ongoing contributers that should be in a Category:This American Life people similar to Category:Radio Free Europe people. Specifically, Ira Glass, Alex Blumberg, Annie Baxter, Jonathan Goldstein (author), Starlee Kine, Jack Hitt, Davy Rothbart, David Rakoff, David Sedaris, Paul Tough, Sarah Vowell and Nancy Updike. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.