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.
Nominator's rationale: This may seem awfully anthropocentric of me, but I just don't think there's real-life fairy royalty. BDD (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- In the past, specific weapon systems were developed in UK, for use by UK and commonwealth forces. Post-WWII, the arms trade has become more international, so that a national category is less appropriate. This is why we have been deleting military equipment by war categories. I am uncertain whether pre-1945, the RAF category might not have been a valid one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Aruban" is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality - their nationality is Dutch. Therefore Aruba should be treated as other sub-national localities like Category:People from Arkansas or Category:People from Yorkshire. Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that is treated as a separate nation for many sporting purposes (eg by FIFA) like Wales and Scotland. But Aruban is not on the List of ethnic groups used as a reference for WP:EGRS (unlike say Scottish or Welsh) and it's not a nationality, so we can't apply it to categories per WP:EGRS as I understand it. I couldn't find much discussion of this other than back in September 2005 and May 2006 but that wasn't really about Aruban people, it was more just tidying up "of locality" categories. There's a couple of dozen Aruban people cats, so I thought I'd leave the hierarchy for a separate CfD as and when we had consensus for the basic principle. I'd envisage the sportspeople and politicians renaming in line with Category:Sportspeople from Northern Ireland etc, but deletion for Category:People of Aruban descent etc on WP:EGRS grounds. Curaçao is a bit different as Curaçaoan is a recognised ethnicity on the list; Category:People from Curaçao is a redirect to Category:Curaçao people - but Sint Maarten is another non-ethnicity, the latter hierarchy is pretty minimal. I'll notify WP Netherlands & Caribbean of this. Le Deluge (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Aruban" is indeed a nationality, since Aruba is a country, as are the other two. The three countries plus the Netherlands constitute the Kingdom of the Netherlands. All hold Dutch citizenship, but they also retain nationality in their home country. It's the same as Cook Islanders being nationals of the Cook Islands and New Zealand citizens. The standard format is "FOOian people" and "FOO people" when there is no good "FOOian" form. Good Ol’factory(talk)20:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Gingers have been used as a substitute for racial themes, with gingerness being the central characteristic of characters and how discrimination works in those fictional works. Other works focus on firecrotches, and the fictional work revolves entirely on the fiery sexual nature resulting from their supposed hair herited characteristics. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If red hair is important, then what about black hair? In DC Comics, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are the company's iconic superheroes. It seems like a superheroes who have importance in that company have black haired and blue eyes.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What of those? They are not defined by their hair color, so what does it matter? Why even bring those characters into the discussion? Are just listing characters by hair color instead of picking those who are defined by them? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Superman does not always have blue eyes, at least not in TV adaptations. Which leads to the fun fact that some of these characters categorized here lack red hair in some versions, at least one case it includes versions mentioned in the so categorized article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Slavic European" is a non-existent ethnic group per the List of ethnic groups used as reference by WP:EGRS. The description makes it clearer what the intention is: "xxx-Jewish people of Slavic and Eastern European descent". So it's conflating an ethnicity (Slav) with a location (Eastern Europe) for Jewish people that kinda come from Eastern-Europe-ish. So this is a category that just doesn't work regardless of other considerations - it's a container category, just assign the subcategories to Category:Austrian Jews etc and have done. More generally, I'm a bit wary of overcategorising "descent" and "ethnicity" categories, for the simple reason that they're fuzzy groupings with quite a lot of grey area and so attempts to apply parent categories can end up as either WP:OR or simply wrong. For instance, people may self-describe as "Russian descent" in the nation sense rather than the strict ethnic sense, even if their origin is neither Slavic nor European. Keep it simple and keep the "descent" hierarchies as flat as possible - personally I could do without the other "country-continent" descent categories like Category:Romanian people of African descent but I'm not sure that I'll win that one - maybe just delete those that are only container categories like that example? Le Deluge (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this more strikes me as part of "Jews who were part of the non-German masses descending on Vienna" than anything else. It is really weird because prior to 1918 much of "Austria"'s population was slavic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete Merge. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see any reason why we have both this and (the more consistently named) Category:Irish media. All the subcategories of the nominated category are also in the other category (which also has a lot of other relevant categories). I thought at first that one of them might imply that it was for the Republic only, but no - we also have the subcategory Category:Media in the Republic of Ireland. This seems like a superfluous spare unnecessary repetitive duplicate tautological redundancy which we don't need. Grutness...wha?08:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse MergeCategory:Irish media into this category. Ireland consists of two polities, but some things are organised on an all-Ireland basis, but purge this parent of all items relating specifically to NI or Republic; and tag this as a container category, except where there is an all-Ireland element. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Government ministers in New Zealand may or may not be members of the Cabinet. There are usually ministers that are outside of Cabinet. It is much easier to figure out who is a government minister than who is a minister within Cabinet. There is no consistency and it largely just depends on political parties—in one government, the education minister might by in Cabinet; in the next, the education minister might be outside of Cabinet. Most New Zealanders probably don't even know about the distinction and assume that a minister is by definition part of Cabinet, but that is not the case. Right now, this category appears to be categorizing all ministers, not just those who were in Cabinet. I suggest renaming this to reflect what it is in fact categorizing. I see no need to set up a subcategorization scheme for ministers who were in Cabinet. The vast majority of other countries simply categorize the government ministers and leave it at that: see Category:Government ministers by country. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually like that? They essentially follow the British system, under which the Education minister & other big jobs will always be in the cabinet, but the Minister of Veterans' Affairs etc normally not. I'm dubious the distinction is quite as obscure as stated. That may not affect the nom. Is there anyone in the category who was never in a cabinet? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is actually like that. (I'm not sure why you think I might misrepresent this or make it up.) Because the parliament uses an MMP proportional representation (which the UK does not), it depends mostly on what party the person belongs to. If the minister is not a member of the ruling party, they are likely out of cabinet. It's only an obscure fact if one is unaware of it, i.e., it is find-out-able, but in my experience most people don't know about it. (It has only really been an issue since 1996, when the first MMP parliament was elected. Since then, no party has had a majority and non-cabinet ministers have occasionally been drawn from minority parties pursuant to coalition agreements.) In the past, I have removed some Ministers of Maori Affairs from the category who were not in Cabinet. It would be much easier if we just did as is done for every other country, and categorize government ministers. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UK has a coalition too, but if you have a big job you are in the cabinet, just as normal - or what's the point of having a cabinet? Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not the designer of the system, I'm just telling you what the situation is. Ministers have big jobs too, and sometimes they are not in cabinet. In NZ, the governing party generally does not want non-party members in cabinet, because cabinet sets policy. Ministers, if they are not in cabinet, are involved generally in implementing policy, but not in designing it. In this category situation, the other possible option is that Category:Government ministers of New Zealand could be created as a parent category for the nominated category, but frankly I think that approach is overkill. Users are beginning to categorize by specific ministerial position and place them in the cabinet category, and if some of the bio articles in these categories have been in cabinet and some have not been in cabinet, it messes up the tree unless they are moved to the parent Category:Government ministers of New Zealand. So why not just have Category:Government ministers of New Zealand? That's what I am suggesting here; to some degree the proposal does simplify things to a level at which I believe the majority of people think about these issues. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that this may be an even more recent innovation than 1996 - Fourth National Government of New Zealand#Cabinet Ministers includes Winston Peters (New Zealand First) and Tau Henare (New Zealand First then Mauri Pacific - Peters pulled his party out of the coalition but a breakaway group stayed in). Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand#Cabinet Ministers has Jim Anderton (Alliance/Progressive) and Peters (New Zealand First). Is this an innovation so far confined to the Key government or are the lists wrong and there really were Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs outside Cabinet? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Peters was never in Cabinet (ie, in neither the Labour one nor the National one). I think the WP pages that indicate that he was is a result of confusion on this very point. He was a minister of the government, but he was not in Cabinet. So many people see that so-and-so was a minister and assume that they were in Cabinet. No one bothers to check. Which is why we really don't need two categories, but we need this one to be slightly broader than it currently is. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do a word search on his article (which like all these is largely a reference-free zone) & he was in & out of the Cabinet like a yo-yo. The particular situation when he held Foreign Affairs when outside the Cabinet (possibly at his his own insistence) was regarded as unusual and undesirable, according to this news story. In the current cabinet & ministerial list the only ministers outside the cabinet have the minor portfolios, as one would expect under a Westminster system. What parties they all belong to I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a portfolio "minor" is subjective and pretty imprecise—unhelpful when it comes to categorization. Call the Minister of Maori Affairs a "minor" government portfolio and see how far you get in NZ. Bring a bat. (Now that I think about it harder—yes, I do recall the Peters incidents—somewhat of a "constitutional crisis" at the time—in fact, that incidents may be the ultimate source of the current practice of leaving non-governing-party members outside of cabinet.) Good Ol’factory(talk)04:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not about being outside the Cabinet being an "exception". There are 1-3 (or more) "junior minsters" outside the Cabinet for every one in it in the UK - see the full list. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2013 (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:Counsel appearing in Canadian appeals to the Judicial Committee
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A re-nomination; previous discussion was closed as "no consensus". After taking it up with the user who closed the discussion, I'm still not entirely clear on why the previous discussion was closed as "no consensus" as opposed to "listify and delete", since eventually even the category creator was in favour of the latter, as were 7 or the 9 users who participated. Anyway, the rationale is the same: I think this is a case of overcategorization by shared naming feature: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." For an example, see Stars named after scientists. The companion category of Category:People honoured with a mineral name was listified in a parallel discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. I can see a purpose for having this information as a list (which seems to already exist), but as a category it is simply a waste of pixelspace. Grutness...wha?10:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point (Internet Explorer has a page search function). The alphabetical list is based on mineral names, the mineral names are based on family names. A list based on people will have an alphabetical list based on family names too. A duplicate ends up on WP:AfD. Do you have an example? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mineral names are not all based on family names (e.g., Arthurite, Alexandrite), and even when they are, they are not always obvious (e.g., Aheylite, Armacolite, Allaboganite). Note that all those examples were from "A" alone - multiply it by the length of the list and you see the problem - having two parallel lists makes for easier search. The other option would be to turn the current list into one which can be sortable by either mineral name or person's name. Given the length of the list, this may not be feasible. Grutness...wha?00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a tag is useful. I hope someday will get a way to tag an article without giving it a category. But hidden categories are only for administrative tasks and Wikidata is another epoch :[
I see no point to make the list into a sortable table. The mineral names follow the family names anyway. If you don't split the table it get enormous and impossible to edit (my Windows XP based PC isn't able to edit a section with a size of 100-120 KBytes). If you split the table, then you lose the alphabetical search function :[
No they don't. A quick scan of the first 100 minerals on the list show that about one sixth have names which do not directly follow family names. Quick - without looking it up, what are the surmnames of the people Torbernite, Strashimirite, and Armalcolite named after? Grutness...wha?00:08, 29 March 2013 (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.
