Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:08, 11 December 2010

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8

Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq

Propose merging Category:Chlorine bombings in Iraq to Category:Terrorist incidents involving chemical weapons

Nominator's rationale: There is not enough material to justify a separate category. Both articles are already categorized in the appropriate Terrorist incidents in Iraq in {Year} category. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties

Propose renaming Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties to Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator or Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible party

Nominator's rationale: I was going to list this for speedy renaming to change "responsible parties" to "responsible party", but "perpetrator" is shorter and no less clear. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not rename: To me, a "responsible party" is not the same as a "perpetrator". Organizations that use terror, will often claim responsebility. Any such organizations might use any number of perpetrators. Therefore changing the name of this category, will dilute the category into more smaller categories, I believe. (Another point perhaps, is that there might be notable claims available to the public, that a number of perpetrators, have individually committed acts of terror for different responsible parties.) --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members

Propose renaming Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band members to Category:Thee Silver Mt. Zion members

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. The band is notorious for constantly changing its name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military equipment by conflict

Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War

Propose renaming Category:Cold War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Cold War

Propose renaming Category:Falklands War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Falklands War

Propose renaming Category:Gulf War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Gulf War

Propose renaming Category:Iran–Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iran–Iraq War

Propose renaming Category:Iraq War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Iraq War

Propose renaming Category:Korean War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Korean War

Propose renaming Category:Kosovo War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Kosovo War

Propose renaming Category:Second Sino-Japanese War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Second Sino-Japanese War

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Civil War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Spanish Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Vietnam War military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War

Propose renaming Category:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) military equipment to Category:Military equipment of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Propose renaming Category:World War I military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War I

Propose renaming Category:World War II military equipment to Category:Military equipment of World War II

Proposing a start of a major renaming effort here, to make the categorys "X of Y" compliant - in addition, they look better this way. Child categories can be speedied later. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (Make clear if you propose deletion, merging or renaming).[reply]
Rename, but with two modifications per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes: (1) "Sino-Japanese" should use a hyphen, not an en dash, because the prefix "Sino-" lacks lexical independence; and (2) "(2001–present)" should use an en dash, not a hyphen. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'll be adding a function to twinkle to allow ease of making speedy rename requests. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – "X of Y" is a good standard to follow. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: The two terms are, practically speaking, homonyms. The articles in the category, without exception, are about the latter. Only the cat on Scotland uses the word "see". Additionally, the adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as "see" that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese" (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename seems to be non-contentious. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious sees

Propose renaming Category:Religious sees to Category:Dioceses

Nominator's rationale: The two terms are homonyms. The adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as a see that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. If this re-name is successful, then all children of the category will also need to be re-named by the same rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There is in fact some slight distinction between an episcopal see and a diocese, but these articles are almost without exception about the latter. The category hierarchy of dioceses could use some additional rationalization. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - they are not always called diocese. Sometimes they are ecclesiastical provinces, archdiocese, eparchies, archeparchies, or exarchates. In fact isn't the generic term "episcopal polity"? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Province" is a special case, in that it lacks a consistent definition across episcopally-organized churches. I question whether we should use it as a category at all. The other cases are all subspecies of dioceses and if we feel so compelled could be made subcategory hierarchies of Category: Dioceses. I suppose the other solution would be to make Category:Religious sees the root and put all the other subspecies directly from it. However there is absolutely no reason to have a "episcopal see" hierarchy with subcategories of "Religious sees in X". Behind all of this is that the hierarchy of dioceses is not especially consistent, as it cannot seem to decided whether to divide up by geography and then by church, or by church and then geography. This is important to the present discussion because the hierarchy within the different churches uses different terms and structures, so that (for instance) in Anglicanism the title of "archbishop" does not correspond to its usage in the Catholic Church (an RC archbishop for instance is more or less at the same level in the hierarchy as an ECUSA diocesan bishop, whereas an Anglican archbishop more closely corresponds to the Pope or to the head of one of the uniate churches). It might make more sense to reorganize the whole tree by church/communion and then establish separate patterns for each. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user Mangoe's analysis above and Support the suggestion to organise by church/communion rather than by state. Ireland is a prime example where both the RC Church and the Church of Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The dioceses of each criss-cross the border. It is an entirely artificial device to pretend that they could be compartmentalised by state. Having said that, a continental geographic is probably worthwhile. It's less likely that dioceses would straddle continental divides. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neither of these two categories were tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting them. --Kbdank71 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Support rename - while there are problems in various parts of the sub-category tree, let's at least have the head consistent with the sub-categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computing navbox templates

Category:Computing navbox templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of project category Category:Computing templates, much of which is navboxes. Double-listing all the computing-related navboxes here would be much more work than it's worth. Subtopical categories are more useful here (with the exception of Category:Computing infobox templates which I think should be kept to promote reuse). Pnm (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable categorization of templates to me. If they are double categorized into templates and navtemplates, just remove the categorization in plain template category. 64.229.101.17 (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're all navigational templates. Some of them are navboxes, and the rest are sidebars. They're more alike than not.

It seems like "subtopical categories are more useful here" was too soft. I should have written "Non-essential categorization with harmful side-effects."

This category splits up topics, making them harder to browse:

Template:Approaches to machine translation goes in Category:Computing navbox templates but Template:Artificial intelligence stays in Category:Computing templates
Template:Sorting, Template:Number theoretic algorithms go in Category:Computing navbox templates but Template:Graph search algorithm stays in Category:Computing templates

--Pnm (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the templates under the "Computing templates" category tree are navigation templates. Some of them are stub-type templates, others are timelines. Why should navigation templates be dumped into the undifferentiated parent category, when differentiation would make it clear what kind of template they are? 65.95.15.116 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I've misunderstood what a navbox is. I thought it was a template that used {{navbox}} but from Wikipedia:Navigation templates it sounds like Template:Graph search algorithm qualifies as a navbox. That being the case, my "splitting" concern goes away. It also makes me think navigation templates in topical subcategories like IRC should not be double-listed.

I agree, it's better not to combine navigation templates with e.g. timeline templates. But it would be simpler to accomplish that by doing what Category:Computing templates urges: place navigational templates at the top and use subcategories for timeline and infobox templates. I don't see any stub-type templates.

Sorting templates is labor-intensive because the categories are sometimes on the template page and sometimes on the /doc page, and you can't use HotCat on templates. --Pnm (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is a sub-category of Category:Navbox (navigational) templates. The aforementioned category would be too cluttered without sub-categories. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local History

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, C1: category that has been empty for four days. It was added to Hendra Paul Farm on 3 December and removed on 4 December. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local History - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Empty category with no discernible purpose Stephenb (Talk) 16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:History of Hanukkah

Category:History of Hanukkah - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization. Barely any of the articles currently so categorized mention Hanukkah at all, and those that do (except Hanukkah itself) are all part of the subcategory Hasmoneans. Besides, it's misnamed; according to creator IZAK's explanation, it's supposed to be not about the history of Hanukkah, but about the historical background that led to the Maccabean Revolt and, by extension, the institution of Hanukkah. There are already sufficient categories for this purpose, like Category:Maccabees and the aforementioned Category:Hasmoneans, and the less directly related articles, such as Seleucid Empire, shouldn't be categorized at all by what was to them a comparatively minor event. Huon (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not just about the "Maccabees" or the "Hasmoneans" and it was not a "minor" event to the Seleucids, because it goes much further historically: (A) While Hanukkah itself is a Jewish religious holy day, there is also a historical dimension to it that is not religion per se. (B) See Hanukkah#Origins of the holiday. The Seleucid Empire invaded Judea resulting in the Hanukkah victories for the Jews. (C) While Hanukkah article and categories cannot go into that kind of historical detail, Category:History of Hanukkah adds greater historical information. (D) The defeat of the Seleucids became a durable 2,200 year historical event and religious festival observed by Jews and Judaism.(E) There is a serious subject called History of religions and Category:History of religion for its depth and scope. (F) While the religious rituals of the festival are narrow and specific, the wider historical origins are indisputable. It was a cultural and military war of clashing civilizations, as the the two books of the Maccabees and other records of the time, such as Josephus, make clear. (G) The history of Hanukkah is mentioned in many other articles, that this category brings together:

Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history, this is pure history, not religion.
Seleucid Empire#Rome, Parthia and Judea, see wars with Judea that is the history of Hunukkah, not just the rituals.
Category:Seleucid Jews, Category:Ptolemaic Jews, Category:Hellenistic Jewish writers are part of the historical period.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes#Sacking of Jerusalem and Persecution of Jews.
Category:Seleucid Jewish history is part of this topic for obvious reasons.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes#Rebellion of the Maccabees.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes#In Jewish tradition.
Category:Battles of the Maccabean revolt are historical battles, not religious events.
Category:Hellenistic Jews is the cultural civil war between Jews.
Category:Second Temple, not part of the holiday but part of the history leading up to it and Hanukkah celebrates the re-dedication of this Temple.
Second Temple#Rededication by the Maccabees is a summary of the connection.
Hellenization#Hellenistic period, impact on Jews and the historical clash finalized with the victory symbolized by Hanukkah.
Hellenistic Judaism#Hellenism.
Hellenistic Judaism#Impact of Hellenistic Judaism.

There is a legitimate amount of cross-referencing and overlap as happens with any inter-related subjects and categories. But categorization in particular lends itself to flexibility depending on what the main focus is. If the main focus is Judaism and Jewish history, then there is Hanukkah and Hanukkah has a history as well. If the main focus is Hanukkah and history, then there needs to be category that contains relevant categories. IZAK (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if this is "overcategorization" and people like the Nominator consider it "unnecessary," others may find it useful. Categories don't eat, don't drink, consume virtually no resources or disk space and may be useful for others. I see no reason not to keep. Nahum (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Yoavd (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boy band members

Category:Boy band members - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two years ago, we deleted the very similar Category:Members of boy bands, in this nomination. This category's members are typically in subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, and their bands are typically in subcategories of Category:Boy bands. (FYI, I just added a bunch of subcategories to this category, but only in an attempt to categorize the members into subcategories of Category:Musicians by band.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per the previous cfd. The article Boy band states that 'the term "boy band" did not exist until the 1990s' and so a host of the articles categorised are wrong, eg all the Jacksons. Anyway we don't have any other categories of band members by music genre. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category serves to identify a large number of members which are in a similar and unique genre. We can also create categories by genre for Members in punk bands, members in rock bands, members in reggae bands etc -- all these may be as useful to develop as is the present category for members in boy bands. The more such genre memberships are developed the more useful it becomes as some may be in more than one catgeory. Incidentally, these catgeories would be concurrent with category for Category:Musicians by band and eaccentuate its usefulness by extra information. werldwayd (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – We do have categories for musicians of other genres: Category:Rock musicians, Category:Pop musicians etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True – I should shift ground somewhat by noting that 'boy band' is not a genre of music. And a pop musician is not necessarily a band member. Occuli (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In fact, it would be easier if Category:Musicians by band were sub-categorised into Category:Musicians in rock bands etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)[reply]

Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin

Category:Arab people by ethnic or national origin - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete The meaning of "Arab people" in this context is ambiguous, but at the moment it is being used to group all the Islamic countries of North Africa and the middle east into a subtree. Category:Arab people gives several definitions, and if we are going to use one of these for "by origin" I think "Arab people" is not a parent to the national categories but gets pushed up to the level of the national categories, and that it in practice will contain only people who cannot be assigned to a national category by reason of timeframe (the vast majority, as most entries would be pre-national) or lack of specific national identity.

The subcategories would be affected as follows:

Category:Arab people of Turkish descent is proposed for renaming below and would have the same pattern of parent cats as other "of Turkish descent" categories.
Category:Arab people of Iranian descent would only contain the current pages (I believe all of them are pre-national). All of the subcategories would be removed from this category; they are all already in Category:People of Iranian descent.
Category:Arab people of Black African descent would be reorganized to create national categories for modern members (e.g. Anwar El Sadat would be moved to Category:Egyptian people of Black African descent). The category would then contain only pre-national members and would lose Category:United Arab Emirati people of Black African descent as a subcategory.

This is an unconventional discussion and it's possible that the titular category might be retained and repurposed, but at this point it doesn't fit the pattern we have for other "nationalities". I welcome any assistance in fixing up this nomination, which I'm sure must have some proecdural faults. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete – pointless over-categorisation. There is no advantage over grouping its 5 sub-categories rather than including them in Category:Wikipedia redirects. It just makes it more difficult to find the sub-categories of its sub-categories, e.g. Category:Redirects from songs, which you may not expect to find there. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Wikipedia redirects per nom. I support subcategorization of Wikipedia redirect categories when the subcategory is a subset of the category (e.g., Category:Redirects from merges is a subcategory of Category:Redirects to related topics), but subcategorization of this type makes the categories harder to find, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism

Category:Wikipedia books on Buddhism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Only one member of the category. Unlikely to be highly populated anytime soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – going back to basics, is this a defining characteristic of Book:Buddhism? Occuli (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are less than 2000 Wikipedia Books. Only one is on Buddhism. I checked. Unless someone decides in the near future to create several more books on Buddhism, which seems unlikely, this category will only have one page in it for the foreseeable future. That means it isn't a category at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much of the Wikipedia books category tree is poorly populated for two reasons. First, we have only c. 1,900 pages in the Book: namespace to be categorized in c. 160 Wikipedia books on... categories. Second, many community books are not currently categorized by topic. As the Wikipedia book tool is used more and more, the situation will improve gradually.
In my opinion, it is not worth upmerging poorly populated Wikipedia books on... categories for a topic as broad as Buddhism, where there are enough subtopics for several new books to be created. If there is no consensus to keep, then upmerge to Category:Wikipedia books on Indian religions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massachusetts Libertarians

Category:Massachusetts Libertarians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only two entries in cat, neither of whom fit the larger category of "politicians" as stated (as they have never held an office). Cat is therefore redundant. MSJapan (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks to me that Joseph L. Kennedy is primarily notable for having run as a Libertarian Party candidate in the Mass. U.S. Senate election. How else would one categorize him if not as a "politician"--or, more specifically, a Libertarian Party politician from Massachusetts, which is what this category is for? If the articles need to go to AFD, that is another story. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – someone who runs for political office seems to me to qualify as a politician (and the 2 are certainly 'Massachusetts Libertarians'). If the articles are deleted then the category is empty and is automatically deleted, so it is the cfd that is redundant, not the category. It is also part of Category:Libertarian Party (United States) politicians, which is subcatted by state, so 1 article suffices. Occuli (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Making the winning of elections a qualification for a cat would favor Democratic/Republican articles at the expense of 3rd party candidates in the US.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment POLITICIAN requires that an office be held, or wide local coverage be available for mayors and council members, and #3 in particular states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability (my bold), although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The coverage of these politicians is not independent of Libertarian sources and they have not held an office at any level. To look at Kennedy in particular, he actually uses his IT business to host the MA Libertarian site, which is also where he put his campaign page, and that is about the extent of the coverage on him. So there's no way to call any of that material independent, as he likely wrote and maintained it himself. Now, this is not to say that maybe the criteria need to be reviewed, but we need to look at what it says now, not what it "should" say. It's not even a case of bias; there are a lot of Dems and GOPers who don't get elected either (state elections pages might show 4 candidates for the same seat), and that doesn't mean that the three losers should get a page. We cannot apply different criteria to a third party just because it is a third party.MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fingal

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of this adminstrative county in Ireland is Fingal, and and the parent category is Category:Fingal. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Fingal County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Fingal would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC
Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. he process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of divisions of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of Fingal is under the jurisdiction of Fingal County Council. Laurel Lodged (talk)
1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of Fingal County Council if not Fingal County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "Fingal County Council" with the area which it administers: "Fingal". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".

The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for Fingal. And drop the personal abuse. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all confused. I'm quite aware of the differences. I'm also aware of the succession. The county council follows the county. One cannot have a county council without a pre-existing county. At least, I'm not aware of any. The creation of the council, t the very least, gives rise to the creation of the county, if legislation or decree has not already done so. A county has no legal existance outside of it's official local government and/or judicial functions. To infer that a county council might exist in the absense of a county is just nonsence.

Regarding the prefix / suffix debate. These arguments have been well rehersed on Project Ireland. I'm pleased with the progress that has been made and that will continue to be made. Clearly the emerging concensus may not be to the liking of all, but that's democracy for you. Certainly, in the interests of peace, I've been more than accommodating to the various sections and have consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties. If you have an issue with that, the Project page is the place to raise it. You made no contributions there, proceeding to this place instead, directly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Laurel, not true. You have not "consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties".

The prefix for the traditional counties is the long-standing status quo, and AFAICS you have not tried to change it. You are the only advocate of imposing your neologism suffixes on the new counties, and there is no consensus for that artifice. As above, open a WP:RM for the county article if you want to test support for your neologism.

I proceeded here because it was quite clear that there was no consensus at WT:IE for your unilaterally-imposed suffixes on the category names, and there were clear objections from others. Since the discussion had dragged on for months without resolution, I brought the categories here to seek a wider consensus .. and just as at WT:IE, you are in a minority of one in championing the neologisms.

Once again, you are confused. You seem obsessed with the "leagl existence of the county", as if that was the only possible existence. The categories are not legal documents, they are geographical entities. They have clearly-defined and widely-understood boundaries which have been stable more than a century, and continue to be widely used for geographical purposes both in academia and in popular usage. And all of that is completely irrelevant to the fact that we agree these categories exist, we don't disagree about the boundaries - we just disagree on whether to use the suffix which you invented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have simplified the nature of that debate. Put simply, to leave the Fingal with neither a prefix nor a suffix gives rise to the suggestion thatFingal is not a county. It might be some third force. Well it's not - it is a county. While irridentists would like to cling to the uber-nationalist notion of "32 counties" and "A nation once again", that just is not the case. There are not 32 counties in the island of Ireland today. There are not 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland today. To say otherwise is to confound the laws of this state. Again, I've no problem putting the traditional counties in their proper context (i.e. the history books), but as a consequence, it cannot be allowed to use their continued existance as articles and categories to suppress the legitimate claims to equality of the other counties. A refusal to grant them their naming rights is what that would amount to.Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the county is Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds no clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. In the case of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, there is an added problem with your proposed change: it only became a county council in 1994, so your proposed rename would exclude its use for DunLaoghaire councillors before 1994, as well as Blackrock Urban District Councillors. A sub-category specifically for the post-1994 county-councillors may be a useful addition, but would not remove the need for the wider category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. he process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of divisions of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is under the jurisdiction of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council if not Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council" with the area which it administers: "Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".

The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. And drop the personal abuse. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Tipperary

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is North Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in North Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in North Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree re the councillors: Adding the word "County" as a suffix in this one case adds o clarity, and breaks the convention. I also disagree with a rename to "County Councillors": the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. The process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of division of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of North Tipperary is under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council. Thirdly, in 1898 the administrative county was named "Tipperary (North Riding)", not "North Tipperary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council if not North Tipperary County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "North Tipperary County Council" with the area which it administers: "North Tipperary". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim".

The long-standing convention on Wikipedia is that category names follow the name of the head article. If you want to change the name used for the county, then start by opening a WP:RM discussion for North Tipperary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Tipperary

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. The name of the county is South Tipperary, and has been since it was created in 1898. The suffix "County" is neither common usage nor official usage: it is a wiki-only artifice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article, as above. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename for 1, Support All Others: The local government is called "County Council" so Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary County should keep the word "County" to be clear. But maybe Category:County councillors in South Tipperary would be cleaner. Support all other changes because county almost exlusively refers to the local government rather than the area.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I generally support removing the "County" as superfluous; however:
- The name was "Tipperary South Riding" until 2001. That fact is actually slightly in favour of the move, since it means that any articles about the period 1838–2001 will be less inaccurate at "South Tipperary" than at "South Tipperary County".
- Category:South Tipperary county councillors is the best name. A supercategory Category:Local councillors in South Tipperary should exist if Wikipedia is interested in Clonmel borough councillors, Carrick on Suir town councillors, etc. The same goes for all the other counties (e.g. Category:Local councillors in County Cork→Cork county councillors) which requires a separate CFD. Indeed I notice Category:Lord Mayors of Cork is a subcat of Category:Local councillors in County Cork even though the county council and the city council/corporation have always been separate. jnestorius^(talk) 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the correction re the South Riding nomenclature. However, I disagree re the councillors: the convention of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland is to have by-county sub-cats named "Local councillors in foo'", and the proposed renaming follows that convention. It may in some cases be appropriate to create sub-cats within each county, for particular councils, but that does not remove the need for the catch-all by-county categories.
    As to Cork, yes the city has always been separate administratively, but geographically it is part of the county, so for navigational convenience it follows the convention other similar categories that Cork City is a sub-cat of County Cork. We do the same with Dublin city and county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, I think the existing convention is wrong-headed. Are there any articles in Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland where the person is a member of a second-tier authority rather than a first-tier authority? Is it likely there ever will be? If not, then they should all be renamed. jnestorius^(talk) 06:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Off the top of my head, the very first one who comes to mind was actually a local councillor in South Tipp: Michael O'Brien, who hit the national headlines last year. Why do you want to uncategorise him?
        I'm sure that there are numerous others, and while they may not be correctly categorised so far (e.g. I think that Ray MacSharry was a member of the Sligo town council before reaching the Dail), that is grounds for populating the categories, not removing them.
        The effect of your position is that we would lose any by-country category for councillors (and even mayors) of town councils, or the former urban district and rural district councils. I am sure that there are plenty of notable members of second-tier councils, and while many of them may not yet have articles (or have have articles but not be categorised), it seems bizarre to insist that towns such as Drogheda, Wexford, Sligo, Tralee, http://www.skibbereentowncouncil.ie Skibbereen], or the city of Kilkenny will have had no local councillors. Don't forget that some of these places have local councillors long-predating independence: Youghal and Kilkenny are two examples which spring to mind, with several hundred years of local govt history in each case.
        In addition, this is the wrong place to push your proposal: if you still want to rename all the sub-cats of Category:Local councillors in the Republic of Ireland, they should be done en masse, with a group nomination for the lot of them, rather than by selectively picking out the few which have have other naming issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In this instance, you've now convinced me the existing cats will still be required, even if county councillor subcategories should be created within each. Regarding the more general point: I agree, and already stated above, that any such rename would be a separate CFD; however it's useful to flag related issues early if there is a chance that a discussion will proceed only to be quickly rendered moot by a subsequent broader change. jnestorius^(talk) 08:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, the nominator has never or rarely visited the WikiPrioject Ireland talk pages. If she had, she would have seen how this topic has been live for a number of months now. There has been a lot of discussion. The process of concensus building has been slow but we are beginning to see progress. This nomination cuts across that debate and makes a mockery of the good work that has been on-going there. Secondly, the nominator seems to assume that a modern administrative county is not a county. The nominator seems to assume that only the traditional counties are / were counties. This is false. The state defines its units of division of the state. The state also decides the units of local governemnt that it puts in those defined areas. In the Local Government Act 2001, the state has so spoken. The local government area (a.k.a. "county") of South Tipperary is under the jurisdiction of South Tipperary County Council. Thirdly, in 1898 the administrative county was named "Tipperary (South Riding)", not "South Tipperary". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Laurel, WP:NPA: Comment on contributions, not contributors. But if you check the archives, you will see that I have been very active in WikiPrioject Ireland at various times over the years, and undertook a humungous restructuring of the Irish by-county categories a few years ago, with hundreds of categs renamed in a dozens or so CFD nominations.
2. I made these nominations after reading the discussions there, and these nominations were reflected the points made in those discussions. I posted a notification of them at the bottom of that discussion ... so your "never visited" assertion suggests either that you haven't been reading WT:IE or that you wilfully stating untruths. Please don't do that.
3. don't put words into my mouth. I am well aware of the legal basis of these counties, and am not assuming in any way that "a modern administrative county is not a county" ... just that the WP:COMMONNAME does not include the suffix "county". In the discussion which I read before making these nominations, you yourself acknowledged here that the "County" suffix is an artificial construct and here that it was your own invention. Your artificial construct received no support, and was specifically opposed here, so it is a gross misrepresentation for you to suggest that this nomination cuts across any consensus, emerging or otherwise.
Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage, the suffix has no place in the category name, which in any case should match the name of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal of erroneous statement The statement "Since the "County" suffix is neither an official term nor common usage" is extraordinary. If one was to take it at face value, one would have to conclude that not a single county in the state was entitled to use the suffix "county"; since all derive the legitimacy of the suffix from either an official decree (or legislation) or through common usage then none is entitled to use the suffix. Happily, the reasoning of the proposer is faulty so that each county can retain its suffix. The legislation names all the local government areas and allocates a county council to administer them. It also names certain cities and names the city council to administer them. Both county councils and city councils have equal standing in law. What is the name of the area under the jurisdiction of South Tipperary County Council if not South Tipperary County? Counties come and go at the whim of legislators. It is not for Wikipedia to adjudicate in such matters. It is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs)
Laurel you are confusing the administrative body of "South Tipperary County Council" with the area which it administers: "South Tipperary". If we were to follow your logic, then all the other counties would be renamed to have a "County" suffix rather than a prefix, since "Leitrim County Council" administers what your logic would call "Leitrim County" rather than "County Leitrim". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab people of Turkish descent

Propose renaming Category:Arab people of Turkish descent to Category:Saudi Arabian people of Turkish descent

Nominator's rationale: Of the three members, one was a Palestinian politician and has been recategorized. The other two are are/were Saudis. Given the structure of these categories it is more appropriate to categorize them by nationality than by ethnicity. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domažlice

Propose renaming Category:Domažlice to Category:Domažlice (town) and its only subcategory: Category:People from Domažlice to Category:People from Domažlice (town)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate with Category:Domažlice District Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The eponymous article is Domažlice. If the article does not need disambiguating from Domažlice District, then neither does the category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province to Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by province or territory

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Includes subcategories for each of the 10 provinces and the 3 territories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Per nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:River Valley

Propose renaming Category:River Valley to Category:River Valley, Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article. Also fixes ambiguous category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Per nom.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 ::::::Once again, you are confused. You seem obsessed with the "leagl existence of the county", as if that was the only possible existence.  The categories are not legal documents, they are geographical entities. They have clearly-defined and widely-understood boundaries which have been stable more than a century, and continue to be widely used for geographical purposes both in academia and in popular usage. And all of that is completely irrelevant to the fact that we agree these categories exist, we don't disagree about the boundaries - we just disagree on whether to use the suffix which you invented. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Support Rename''' per nominator's rationale. [[User:Snappy|Snappy]] ([[User talk:Snappy|talk]]) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
+::::::::I think that you have simplified the nature of that debate. Put simply, to leave the Fingal with neither a prefix nor a suffix gives rise to the suggestion thatFingal is not a county. It might be some third force. Well it's not - it '''is''' a county. While irridentists would like to cling to the uber-nationalist notion of  "32 counties" and "A nation once again", that just is not the case. There are not 32 counties in the island of Ireland today. There are not 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland today. To say otherwise is to confound the laws of this state. Again, I've no problem putting the traditional counties in their proper context (i.e. the history books), but as a consequence, it cannot be allowed to use their continued existance as articles and categories to suppress the legitimate claims to equality of the other counties. A refusal to grant them their naming rights is what that would amount to.[[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 ==== Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown ====