The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnecessary category. Delete. Bearcat 19:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. without it, its members would be the only group of prominent politicians without a sub-category under the category Category:Ontario politicians - having it makes for a tidier category:Ontario politicians page -Mayumashu 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first place, not one person listed in this category belongs anywhere near Category:Ontario politicians. A politicians by province subcategory is for politicians whose political careers are specifically associated with that province, not for where a politician just happens to have been born. For two, no other political jurisdiction on the planet has a remotely comparable category at all; there's no good reason I can see why Ontario should be the only one. Bearcat 05:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • who determined that the cat cannot be used for both politicians who have active in Ontario politics and Ontario natives active in politics somewhere else? and what would be the advantage in doing excluding the later from this category? the subcats allow for the distinction to be clearly made. that no similar cat at present exists does set a precedent that there shouldn't be. the cat aids in tidying up Category:People from Ontario, is clearly defined, and able to be populated without being either under or overpopulated -Mayumashu 07:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the fact that they were born in Ontario have anything to do with their political career? No. Does the fact that they were born in Ontario have any specific impact on the development of their politics? Clearly not, if the category can include both Alexa McDonough and Stephen Harper. Wikipedia policy pretty clearly spells out that categories are meant to group people on significant axes of comparison that actually hold some importance in understanding the subject; we can't just implement a category for any old random fact that multiple people happen to share, but which is of no practical significance. Bearcat 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete as overcategorization. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. - SimonP 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list. siafu 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unenyclopedic overcategorization. The inhabitants just belong in the relevant "People from Ontario" category. -Splash^talk 02:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the category, and create a list. — Instantnood 10:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. The title suggests these politicians have something to do with Ontario politics or are double-agents secretly working for Ontario while in other provinces. Once you go Ontarian you never go back, eh? How does one renounce one's Ontarian citizenship? Anyways, I was born and lived the first 6 months of my life in Manitoba and I haven't lived there since. Am I a Manitoban? I never really thought of it that way. --maclean25 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the pages populating the cat are of people who were mostly or entirely raised in Ontario, not just born there. -Mayumashu 15:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I have lived in Ottawa from when I was 6 months old until I was 16 (minus one year in Alberta). I have lived in B.C. since mid-1995. Yes, I was an Ontarian and I never went back (except at christmas). Am I an Ontarian living in B.C. or a British Columbian who lived in Ontario or a Manitoban who has raised in Ontario, learned to spell in Alberta, and matured in B.C.? Perhaps this kind of category works for moving from country-to-country (which is a big deal and involve legal citizenship) but becomes really ambiguous when dealing with moving province-to-province (which happens all the time). --maclean25 19:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per prior comments. The precedent and potential for infinite regress, given human migration between provinces/territories, etc., is too great to ignore. E Pluribus Anthony 19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and to some people so is ignoring that a person spent a considerable length of time in one place while growing up. at any rate, the precedent to categorize pages on people according to where they grew up has been set - this cat was simply an attempt to tidy up the page

Noted, and if a substantial number of noteworthy names/people could be added to such a category (particularly between countries like the US and Canada, as maclean25 suggests), I could possibly be compelled otherwise. Until then, however, retention is apparently in the minority for various reasons. E Pluribus Anthony 16:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. --Calton | Talk 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Duplicate of Category:Visayas Islands as far as I can tell. TexasAndroid 17:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the subcategory/test page. Please torch it as well. TexasAndroid 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete see below. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category: space is not for this kind of thing which serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community at large (which is the only defence for the various Wikipedia cats). Just use a list on your userpage or something. And note that there is no such namespace as Category:User: — it actually is a category in category space, that happens to have the name "User:...". -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User test category. This needs to go, IMHO. TexasAndroid 17:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm very surprised by this nomination. My impression was that we allowed users to construct subpages of their user page freely? -- Creidieki 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can make all the subpages you want, this is a category, not a subpage. there is not need to categorize userpages. If you want to know where they are, make a list on your own subpage. For that matter, add it to your watchlist. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete today. There needs to be a CSD for this. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I don't understand. I thought that anything named "User:Creidieki/foo" was a subpage of my userpage. I'm rather surprised by this whole process; no one involved has explained why user categories are harmful, and they don't seem to be against policy (Wikipedia:Categorization); why are people opposed to them? These categories are *clearly named* to indicate that they are part of someone's user hierarchy, so it seems like there's no chance of problems with the main namespace. Why introduce an additional policy against something that isn't harmful, just because you seem to think that other people don't "need" it? -- Creidieki 00:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User: is a seperate namespace, as is Category: This is an encyclopedia not a webhost. There is nothing wrong with having a userpage and subpages, but the category structure is for the encyclopedic content and the adminstrative functions of Wikipedia. I have tons of subpages, and it takes me but a second to goto my watchlist to see them all, there is no need to categorize them. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you seem to be opposing this feature on the bases that it's not what it was originally designed for and that you don't personally use it. If it's not harmful, and others have found this usage helpful, why restrict them?

I think there are valid reasons to have user page categories, without resorting to webhosting. In the last few weeks, I've started user subpages for storing stock text for various tasks (the templates I use when checking newpages, the templates for redirect categorization, etc.). Would you oppose me creating a category for these stock text pages, if it helped me keep my subpages in order? I could use other methods of organizing these pages, but categories seem more natural. I think that user categories are a potentially useful tool, and I don't believe that they violate any policies. -- Creidieki 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category: space is not for this kind of thing which serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community at large (which is the only defence for the various Wikipedia cats). Just use a list on your userpage or something. And note that there is no such namespace as Category:User: — it actually is a category in category space, that happens to have the name "User:...". -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually there is a CSD for this (#G2). But Splash is correct. This isn't your userspace because it starts with "category". Sorry to say, but several mechanisms on Wikipedia are not for personal use. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You're correct that this is a test page. I got somewhat defensive when one of my subpages was nominated for deletion without anyone communicating with me first. Subpages in a different namespace are apparently somewhat controversial, and I'm still interested in discussing these issues, but I'm going to continue in the nomination below. These two pages aren't important to me, and I'm sorry for having gotten defensive. -- Creidieki 17:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another category organizing a user's subpages. See my comments on the item below. TexasAndroid 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Your deletion request lumps this with the category below, but unlike that category, this category is clearly in the Category User namespace, where it belongs. Also, what advantages are there to deleting this? -- Creidieki 00:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category: space is not for this kind of thing which serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community at large (which is the only defence for the various Wikipedia cats). Just use a list on your userpage or something. And note that there is no such namespace as Category:User: — it actually is a category in category space, that happens to have the name "User:...". -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the above. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I admit that this is one of the first times I've needed to use CfD, and probably the regulars have a more developed and nuanced view of what categories are for than I do. Why is this category harmful? I understand that was not the original conception of the category namespace, and that other mechanisms might be available for organizing this content. But even if "Category User" isn't a separate namespace in the code, the name of this article makes it clear what the category is for; categories starting with "User:" form a distinct set of names. Does the existence of this category interfere with something, or detract from some function? What is it that people are worried about? I'd appreciate if someone would explain to me the things that perhaps you already know. -- Creidieki 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to clarify to Creidieki, there is no such thing as a Category User namespace in MediaWiki. --Kwekubo 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We did one of these before, but it was a lot less used. But the same principle applies. Do we, in general, want individual editors to be able to use categories to organize page from their personal namespace? My opinion is no. TexasAndroid 17:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just personal stuff. Not helpful in writing an encyclopedia. Honbicot 01:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community at large. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Save. What's next, deleting sub-pages of sub-articals or whatever you call them? --Wack'd About Wiki 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that subpages are in the User namespace, while Categories are in the main namespace. - TexasAndroid 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the category heading says that it's redundant, and to use Category:Wikipedians in the United States instead. TexasAndroid 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most Wikipedian cats as first preference, but support the rename as a second. If renamed, make a soft redirect. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most Wikipedian cats as first preference, but support the rename as a second. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename per Splash and Radiant. siafu 19:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category now. Only had one article, which was a categorized redirect (ZIP code 30363). Never seen a redirect categorized before, and am pretty sure that's a practice we don't want to start, so I uncategorized the redirect. But even so, other than maybe the main ZIP Code article, I can't really see what would go here, as we really don't have articles for individual zip codes. TexasAndroid 15:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there was a WP:CENT discussion about this ages ago. Zip codes are generally covered in lists, not individual articles. Radiant_>|< 10:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. siafu 21:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. -Splash^talk 02:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. There does NOT have to be an individual article for a page to be in a category. Other redirects also have approriate categories as well. This is an entirely proper use of categories.  –radiojon 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baaaack! Hopefully these renames will pass. I'm starting with the first column of this category.

• Category:Theatre in Argentina to Category:Argentine theatre
• Category:Theatre in Australia to Category:Australian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Austria to Category:Austrian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Belgium to Category:Belgian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Brazil to Category:Brazilian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Chile to Category:Chilean theatre
• Category:Theatre in China to Category:Chinese theatre
• Category:Theatre in Colombia to Category:Colombian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Croatia to Category:Croatian theatre
• Category:Theatre in Cuba to Category:Cuban theatre
• Category:Theatre in Czechoslovakia to Category:Czech theatre
• Category:Theatre in Denmark to Category:Danish theatre
• Category:Theatre in Finland to Category:Finnish theatre

There is one questionable entry...Category:Theatre in Bosnia-Herzegovina should this be changed to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian theatre, Category:Bosnian theatre or just left alone? *Exeunt* Ganymead 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all. I think they sound better as they are and you have given no reason for your request. Honbicot 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but it might be wise to defer this discussion to Category talk:Theatre by country and see what consensus emerges there for the whole category. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE - RETAIN all but Czechoslovakia. This country has changed its name to the Czech Republic, so we should also. As for the others: If I am going to search for a county on any topic, I would put in FINLAND, not FINNISH. I would use Argentina, not Argentine. You have to think about this from a new users POV when that person is SEARCHING for information. More people will search for the name of the COUNTRY than will not. WikiDon 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement is not correct: "This country has changed its name to the Czech Republic." Czecholslovakia split into two countries: the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. David Hoag 05:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per my comment on Category talk:Theatre by country CalJW 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and defer to the Talk: page where this is being discussed, but split Czechoslovakia where appropriate. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• "Support" or "table" decision. This vote will end in no concensus so defer it to the talk page as recommended in the previous renaming attempt three days ago. --maclean25 19:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per arguments made at Category talk:Theatre by country—a nationality-driven division of theatre is more practical than a territorial one. -The Tom 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Almohad dynasty --Kbdank71 14:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are by definition "related topics." This should just be Category:Almohads. - SimonP 14:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Almohad dynasty, since Category:Almohads would be restricted to people. siafu 23:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I agree with the above comment that Category:Almohads would only refer to Almohad people and not other related articles. Category:Almohad dynasty would be much better.--Bkwillwm 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate articles would fit equally well in Category:Valleys of Wales, which is far from over-populated itself. Category is also on Special:Uncategorizedcategories, which deletion would also solve. AJP 13:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the other name is better and this category is empty. I would be careful about viewing deletion as a means for solving the partiuclar problem mentioned, however! -Splash^talk 02:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deferred to WP:TFD. «»Who?¿?^meta 11:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is solely populated by Template:POV-AIC, which I've just listed at templates for deletion (see its entry). I think having separate templates/categories for different subject areas is unhelpful instruction creep. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer to TFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note. Categories used solely by a template are handled by TFD, if the template is deleted, the category gets deleted along with it. Even if the closing admin doesn't delete the category, it can be listed as speedy, w/o the 2 day wait. «»Who?¿?^meta 11:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename, standard hyphenation. Mais oui! 09:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC) I would like to change my support to the new proposal, now that the category has been expunged of some dubious entries: Support new rename proposal, to Category:Britons of Irish descent Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. (Personally, I still think that too many 2nd generation, and even later, people of Irish descent are still included. Surely the cat would have more authority if it only included immigrants and the 1st generation of offspring of immigrants? But that is not a reason to delete the genesis of a very good, useful category.)--Mais oui! 18:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• rename, although there are quite a few without hyphen in Category:American_people_by_national_origin. Arniep 10:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A very strange category. Some of the people e.g. Roy Keane are clearly Irish and not British and merely live in the UK, others are British and may have some Irish ancestry - can Cherie Booth really be called Irish?. It probably needs a clean up.GordyB 10:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• there is nothing particularly strange about this category, it is the equivalent of Category:Irish-Americans or Category:Italian-Americans, for people who have lived on the island of Ireland for a significant time or who had a significant ancestor who lived there for a significant time (who consider(ed) themselves Irish) who have contributed to life in Great Britain. Arniep 10:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel that the existence of "hyphenated" nationality categories for other countries should mean that comparable categories should automatically exist for the United Kingdom. Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want to classify Bono, Henry Kelly, Graham Norton, etc as Irish-British just because they've "contributed to life in Britain". They're not really British in any way. JW 11:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have all lived in Great Britain for a notable amount of time, a lot of other immigrants describe themselves as British after only a short while. Also quite a few people are described as Americans when they didn't really live in America for very long or were not American citizens. Arniep 14:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would have to take British citizenship to be classed as "Irish-British", not just have lived in Britain. Irish people shouldn't be classed as "Irish-Americans" just because they have lived or worked in America either. JW 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Considering that the term doesn't google (at least, gets a plethora of entirely unrelated hits), and as far as I know nobody much calls himself Irish-British, delete. Radiant_>|< 10:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more normally used term is Anglo Irish but I don't think this adequately covers Welsh or Scottish people of Irish descent, categories which would be sparsely populated if we were to separate them out. Arniep 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anglo-Irish is normally used to refer to people in Ireland of English descent (the so-called Protestant ascendancy). Valiantis 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term Anglo Irish is commonly used to describe the Pogues, Shane Macgowan's group. Arniep 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that the term is misused by music journalists (and Wikipedia editors on the MacGowan page) is not in itself a basis for us misusing it here. It is well defined in the Anglo-Irish article. Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; nearly everybody in England has an Irish grandmother. If we apply the same criteria to this as to the American categories it would be unmaintainable. JW 11:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is your source for "nearly everybody in England has an Irish grandmother"? That has no basis in fact imo, I am English and do not have an Irish grandmother and I know a lot of people who also don't. There are probably places in Great Britain where people of Irish descent are common i.e. Liverpool, Manchester, London, Glasgow, that is just the same as Boston Chicago New York Pittsburgh in the U.S. Arniep 11:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think its as much a question of how people see themselves. I know it's fun for Americans to pretend they're Irish because they've got Irish grandparents or whatever, but British people wouldn't generally think of themselves as "Irish British" in the way the category implies. JW 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I disagree I know at least 5 people who would describe them,selves that way. Arniep 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No such ethnic group. (And I say this as a Briton with two Irish grandparents and six Irish great-grandparents). The use of "hyphenated British" terms is minimal to non-existent in the UK. If such a category must exist, then it should be called Category:Britons with Irish ancestry; however, I am unclear as to what the usefulness of this category would be. Valiantis 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Changed vote to support new proposal to rename Category:Britons of Irish descent. This is factually determinable and makes no POV presuppositions about the existence of an "Irish British" ethnicity. Valiantis 22:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irish people and their culture is distinct from British culture, therefore it is just as valid as Irish American, Irish immigrants or their descendents in America, as Irish British can be defined as Irish immigrants or their descendants in Great Britain. As for the categories usefulness that is obviously subjective. It is perfectly possible someone would have an assignment on Irish people who have contributed to British culture. Arniep 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not really bothered about the naming of this category but I think there is value in showing that Irish people and thir descendants have contributed to life in Great Britain, so I suggest a consensus needs to be reached on a new name. Arniep 14:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia should not be used to make a point in that way. CalJW 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague, covers too many people, hardly used in real life. Honbicot 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the evidence is that it covers too many people, it is only going to include British people on Wikipedia who have known Irish ancestry. I think that may be even less than people already in the Category:Irish-Americans. Arniep 18:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK a phrase which is used is the Irish diaspora, therefore I propose renaming the category Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. Arniep 18:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish diaspora"? That's hardly in common usage in the UK. I can't tell where you come from from your page, but if you lived in the UK and took an interest in the backgrounds of your white "British" acquaintances you wouldn't doubt that it covers a huge number of people. But to many of them it is of no significance. CalJW 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A search for Irish diaspora on google [1] turns up 68,400 matches I would say that is a pretty good indication that is a well accepted phrase. There are millions of Americans with Irish ancestry too. Only people with significant Irish ancestry i.e. a grandparent who are on Wikipedia are included in the category not just anyone who has a distant Irish ancestor. I really don't see why this category is any different to Mexican American, Italian French etc. Arniep 00:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'ethnic' subcats usually, including this one. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. For most of England's history, it considered the Irish to be a seperate and degenerate race. Ethnism (is that the right word) against them remains strong. Pretending this isn't so is a fools paradise. CantStandYa 01:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Sorry, but this smacks of racism to erase this category simply because some British people don't like it. Just because certain Brits look down their nose at the Irish is no reason to delete a perfectly valid category and a perfectly valuable research topic. I find, more and more, the "categories for deletion" are about certain things that particular individuals don't like. The original idea behind the "CfD" was to get rid of nonsense categories. This is clearly not nonsense and a valid category. I do agree, however, that it should be renamed in keeping with standard hyphenation rules. David Hoag 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to your implication that the reasonable objections myself and others have made to this category are motivated by racism. If a motivation is not explicitly stated then it is merely your assumption that this is a motive. I have generally found it unhelpful to make assumptions about people's motives in editing Wikipedia. Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would need a very tight definition to be at all meaningful - and is not a category that is used at all often or has a consensus definition. It seems very strange when someone who sees himself as Scots, such as Charles Kennedy gets added to it (because of his name perhaps)? Also when Irish citizens who don't have a British passport are included. We shouldn't forget that any Irish citizen who wants to live in the UK can do so at will with the same rights as a British citizen including voting in all elections. If someone is keen on their Irish identity, they can live in Britain, stay an Irish citizen and it will make nil difference to their everyday life. And that's before we even start to consider Northern Ireland where this category could prove incendiary (and very non-NPOV). Should we add all Northern Irish who want a united Ireland (oops, no, they don't consider themselves British)? And leave out all the Northern Irish people who don't (oops, no, they don't consider themselves Irish)? I'll be much more persuaded of the need for this category when I see the first posting in this thread where someone says "I consider myself Irish British". Mpntod 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles Kennedy was brought up Catholic, his grandfather was Irish. Really I don't see why we can have Italian British, Chinese British but not this category. Arniep 10:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was brought up Catholic and two of my grandparents were Irish, but I do not consider myself Irish British (with or without a hyphen). This is simply not a term in normal usage. In any case, I am unclear as to what bearing religion has on this. There are Catholic Irishmen and there are Protestant Irishmen. (Similarly there are English and Scottish Catholics who have either converted or have descended from recusant families). Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably because they're not two neighbouring countries with the same language and extremely complex relationships when it comes to identity. My experience is that British citizens with Irish ancestry will describe themselves as "British" or "Irish" or "part-Irish", but not "Irish British". Why is it that there is no category of "Canadian Americans"? Or "Austrian Germans"? Mpntod 11:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That is also my experience. Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above I propose a new name for the category Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain which avoids indicating citizenship or "labelling" problems. Arniep 13:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult category for a number of reasons. Irish unionists would find the category rather strange for one thing, as they would probably claim with some justification that they are the Irish British. I think the category is justified but is too broad, to be a member surely the person should have a sense of being both Irish and British, better to split the category into those who are Irish people who just happen to live in Britain and those who have a significant amount of Irish ancestry but are British. Great care needs to be done with the latter as hyphenated nationalities aren't really as significant in the UK as in the USA. Spike Milligan is definitely an Irish Briton but some of the others are not.

PS: The racism allegation is a joke, what evidence is there that 'Brits' do look down on the Irish? None.GordyB 13:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unionists do not call themselves Irish British, many find it offensive to be called Irish, they describe themselves as Ulstermen or Ulster Scots or just British. Arniep 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They call themselves British and Irish. Only hardline Unionists object to the Irish tag.GordyB 17:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Spike Milligan lived and worked in Britain, I understand from the WP article that he had Irish citizenship. So he would be Irish. There is actually some discussion on this issue on Talk:Spike Milligan which highlights some of the problems with this whole issue (e.g. the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom before 1922 which has an impact on historical people put into this category). Valiantis 15:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No part of the island of Ireland was ever in Great Britain. This category is for people (or people whose close forebear) moved from the island of Ireland to the island of Great Britain. Unionists in Northern Ireland describe themelves as British as they are descended from people from England and Scotland which are in Great Britain. Arniep 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more complicated than that. Irish Protestants aren't 100% non-Irish just as Irish Catholics aren't 100% non-British.GordyB 17:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re: the geographical location of Ireland :). However, British is the standard nationality adjective for citizens of the United Kingdom (on WP and in real life), so all the citizens of Ireland had British nationality (in so far as such a concept existed at the time) prior to 1922. That's the specific point I was making here - sorry if that wasn't clear. Valiantis 22:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. For the sake of consistency. WolframSiever 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I have removed people who are not British citizens, I propose the category should be renamed Category:Britons of Irish descent. Arniep 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support new proposal. It makes more sense as a narrower category and the title is clearer.GordyB 17:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous delete vote confirmed. Unlike the U.S. we are not irredeemably afflicted with an emphasis on these things. This could cover 20% of the population, but in most cases it is irrelevant. The category makes a political point, as has been admitted. Honbicot 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well some people think history and art are irrelevent it's all POV. Arniep 23:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as suggested by User:Arniep -Mayumashu 11:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. Actually, I don't care about the name, as long as there is a clear definition of "Irish descent". However, that can be sorted out later. What's relevant to CfD is that this is certainly a valid categorisation, regardless of whether it is more an American than a British concept. I can see no reason to delete. RMoloney 15:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I actually would prefer Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain as this reflects the fact that it is to illustrate people of note in Great Britain, not Northern Ireland which was what I created the category for. Arniep 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I would prefer Category:Britons of Irish descent or Category:Irish diaspora in Britain. I oppose the term Great Britain a it smacks of empire and is used by very few British people these days. However, the category should only be used for those individuals who publically acknowledge their Irish ancestry. --Damac 14:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Category:Britons of Irish descent does not fit the purpose of this category as it only is intended to include people of note in Great Britain, not any Briton who may be famous in Northern Ireland only or elsewhere. Great Britain is the official name for the island comprising England, Scotland, and Wales. I don't think Wikipedia will allow just Britain. The "Great" really has nothing to do with empire, it was named that way to differ it from the smaller islands in the British Isles, although it has been used in a patriotic way of course. Regards Arniep 21:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I would also disagree strongly that only individuals who publically acknowledge their Irish ancestry should be included in this category. Most public figures do not speak publicly about their ancestry. It is usually revealed in research done by journalists or biographers, and as factual information, it deserves to be in Wikipedia. Arniep 10:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Irish diaspora in Britain or Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain (or at a pinch to Category:Britons of Irish descent). I agree with GordyB that the current name is suggestive of Unionists and others in Ireland who consider themselves British. Palmiro | Talk 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Britons of Irish descent. This will cover native people of Northern Ireland who are Irish descent, and anybody with Irish ancestry (from any part of the island of Ireland) and living in any part of the UK. — Instantnood 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I created this category for people or for people whose ancestor moved from the island of Ireland to the island of Great Britain. Renaming it Britons of Irish descent would include a huge number of people in Northern Ireland which destroys the whole purpose of the category. Arniep 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As suggested at user talk:Arniep, make it two layers: the upper layer for Britons of Irish descent, and the second for the Irish disapora on Great Britain (i.e. England + Scotland + Wales). — Instantnood 08:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition to my previous comment, create a category for the Irish diaspora in Great Britain first. The other category I've suggested is subject to further discussion. — Instantnood 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the term Briton can apply to anyone born on the British Isles, of which both Great Britain and Ireland are a part, I'm concerned that at some level Category:Britons of Irish descent is somewhat confusing. Hiding talk 11:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OK I think I've finally worked out the best solution. We should split this category into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live(d) in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or born to Irish ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). Arniep 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would Support this proposal as the least bad compromise. Both names are NPOV in themselves (unlike Irish disapora which is a politically loaded term and which implies that all people who happen to have Irish ancestry view themselves as part of a some theoretical community). However, am I correct in understanding that only the original proposer can change the header so that people know what is being voted on? As this has now been changed twice and Arniep is proposing a third change, might it be preferable to mark this as unresolved - there is clearly not an overwhelming consensus - and for Arniep to make a fresh proposal. Some of the votes in the current discussion are for a rename which is no longer proposed, others oppose the original rename but might accept the new proposal to split (etc). I am unsure what the mechanism for doing this is. Valiantis 18:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this solution, but agree that closing and relisting makes more sense. Hiding talk 11:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename, along standard lines for these hyphenated "origins" cats. Mais oui! 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that the term doesn't google (at least, gets a plethora of entirely unrelated hits), and as far as I know nobody much calls himself Chinese-British, delete. Radiant_>|< 10:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename the more normally used term is Anglo Chinese but I don't think this covers adequately covers the significant Chinese community in Scotland. Arniep 10:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain: "Chinese-British" is formed on a false analogy with American usage. The current name is correctly formulated. Compare British Asian. Valiantis 12:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain per Valiantis Honbicot 16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'ethnic' subcats usually, including this one. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one entry. Let's zap it before it expands. if kept, don't rename. Honbicot 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash and Honbicot. siafu 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. — Instantnood 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I can't think of any famous Chinese British people. I thought Ken Hom might be but he's American and lives in France. Arniep 08:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • What about these people? --Calton | Talk 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's 9 people. Does that need a category? I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is. Arniep 10:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, retain the term British Chinese is the title of this article British Chinese, but if it's going to include people further than 2nd generation it should be Category:Britons of Chinese descent. Arniep 10:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? The term Irish Americans is not solely for the first generations either. And there are definitely more than 9 entries on Wikipedia for British people with Chinese ancestry. — Instantnood 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • American usage is irrelevant for cats that refer explicitly to the UK. That being said, British Chinese is the correct term regardless of how many generations of descent there are. The UK census allows people to group themselves into the following ethnic groups and subgroups [2]: White (subgroups = White British; White Irish; White Other); Mixed (subgroups = White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Mixed Other); Asian or Asian British (subgroups = Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Asian Other); Black or Black British (Caribbean; African; Black Other); Chinese or Other ethnic group (subgroups = Chinese; Other). The 'Other' subgroups allow the respondent to write in a specific ethnic group. (NB in British official usage Asian refers to people from the Indian sub-continent. People from East Asia are Chinese or Other). As long as a person continues to identify themselves as ethnically Chinese they remain Chinese as an ethnicity rather than a nationality. If they have British citizenship, they are of course British by nationality. Hence British Chinese. Valiantis 18:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain or Rename: do NOT delete. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per siafu --Kbdank71 20:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is to be deleted, the articles should be moved to category:British people and category:overseas Chinese. — Instantnood 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 15:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the 202 by-country subcats of this category are nearly all in Nationality sport form. Since these are by-country, not by-nationality I propose we rename these to Sport in country form (preserving "sport" or "sports" per current usage), changing the existing convention listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) (note this would include renaming the outliers Category:Sports in Dominica, Category:Sport of the Dominican Republic, Category:Sport of Grenada, etc.). In addition, I propose we extend this convention (more renaming) to the by-sport subcategories, which would affect all subcats of Category:Basketball by country, Category:Cricket by country, Category:Football (soccer) by country, Category:Golf by country, Category:Ice hockey by country, and Category:Tennis by country. Note that this proposal affects approximately 500 individual categories. I haven't added cfru tags to them yet. I am confident user:Whobot or user:Pearle (Whobot's mother) could be cajoled into uncomplainingly doing the actual renaming. If you're wondering why, I'm seeing a meta-rule develop (suggested by comments from user:The Tom) that distinguishes categories by country (with a something in/of/from country naming format) from categories by nationality (with a nationality something naming format). The ability to effect sweeping changes like this was one of the points behind establishing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) as policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, this proposal pertains only to the form of the names, not to the terminology that might be used. Categories currently called nationality something would be renamed to something in country (so, for example, "Swedish football" would become "Football in Sweden" while "Canadian football (soccer)" would become "Football (soccer) in Canada"). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Did he just say 500 categories. Wow :) Rename and establish rule. BTW, gonna start working on tagging. «»Who?¿?^meta 11:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. DO NOT under any circumstances change the categories that currently use "sports" to "sport". Otherwise, support. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar for other areas with different usage...it should be "Soccer in the United States" but "Football in Britain". Christopher Parham (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposol, but I agree, we need to be very specific here, this is a lot of territory. But not so specific that we can't have a standard. «»Who?¿?^meta 11:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Would amending this so the Sport in foo categories would be either Sport in foo or Sports in foo (per existing subcat names) satisfy your concern? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it would. Only a handful of the categories currently use "sports" so it is not a big deal. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal changed to reflect preservation of "sport" or "sports". -- Rick Block (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - we need some solid rule for this - we seem to keep going back and forth on naming styles. "Sport in Foo" is the only form that would work is all cases (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago-related, since the correct adjectival form would be "Trinidadian and Tobagonian Sport" which is needlessly long. Guettarda 12:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay but do not change categories which use "sport" to "sports" or use any other Americanisms where they are not appropriate. Honbicot 16:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed (but I wouldn't really have had much trouble with either the plural or not. Both sound fine to my British English ear), and sports a little better since they categorise multiple different sports rather than the abstract concept of sport. -Splash^talk 03:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please think through the context. Of course we use the plural of the noun "sport" sometimes, but the distinction between British and American English in the use of "sport" and "sports" as a collective term is completely clear and indisputable. Compare BBC sport page and New York Times sports page CalJW 12:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Some bot added this notice to Category:Football in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What would be the reason for renaming that category? There is no other variant of football in .ba that is remotely popular other than football, so there is no real need to disambiguate. --Joy [shallot] 09:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category was tagged by mistake and will not be renamed under this proposal. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Providing that they stay as "sport in" rather than "Sports in" this is okay, but pages should not be renamed unless they have been tagged first. CalJW 12:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Tagging seems to be complete now. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Two things by way of comment, though:
  • Firstly, on matters of Canadian English: while the section of the newspaper in Canada is indeed named "Sports" instead of "Sport," Sport remains the term when referring to sporting activities categorically (eg, Canadian Interuniversity Sport or the federal government's Minister of State for Sport. So Sport in Canada would be the ideal category name. This makes me wonder whether the United States would be the only outlier, or is "Sport" used similarly there as well?
    • "Sport" (no s) is almost never used in the United States to refer to athletics collectively. I only say "almost" because there are probably expatriates in this country who do use this term. siafu 23:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, care should be taken not to rename "Fooian bar" to "Bar in fooland" when "Fooian bar" is a sport in its own right Canadian football/American football are two examples that come to mind immediately. We could have Category:American football in Germany and Category:Canadian football in the United States, for instance. -The Tom 18:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is a good idea. siafu 23:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for renaming. --Monkbel 04:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.