php-deluxe.net - description Categories for deletion Log 2005 April 30

Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 30

= April 30 =

== ==

no consensus (keep) -- 14:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Voting results:

Rename (5): Jtdirl, Djegan, File Eireann, Noisy, Kiand

Keep (4): Oliver Chettle, Instandnood, HenryGb, Kbdank71

No consensus. Default is to keep

This category is unworkable in this format. Users may not realise but what is now the Republic of Ireland has had 8 names, some of them overlapping. This category using this name can rightly only cover elections since 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Oppose I believe there is a political agenda at work here, part of an ongoing attempt to create a category system for Ireland which legitimises the Republican claim to the whole of the island of Ireland. If 05:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::That is pananoid rubbish, so ridiculous it is beggars belief. The only issue is that at present, elections like the 1918 one are orphaned. They can t be categorised under this name of this article. Neither can the 1932, 1938, 1943 or 1944 elections. Nor can any in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries. It would be ridiculous to create 8 categories, when some of the states names overlap, meaning that elections after 1949 would belong in both the �?ire category and the Republic category, the 1922 election would belong in three - the Irish Republic, Sourthern Ireland and the Irish Free State. Finally using one s national colours in one s username does not mean one is not neutral. I ve spent much of the last few weeks working on British royal pages and tonight took republican propaganda from a page on the Irish famine. Mr Chettle s grasp of colour schemes is as shaky as his grasp of Irish history. 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::It isn t paranoid at all. There have been several attempts to destroy Northern Ireland categories as if it is not a legitimate entity, such as 16:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::::That is exactly the point. But the Republic of Ireland only came into existence in 1949. It isn t a new change of state, of constitution, only a technical change. The 1948 election had the same electorate, same state and same electoral system as the 1951. Not even the ballot paper changed. So why should it be in a different category And what name would be used, as the name of the state in the constitution in 1937 is Ireland Using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is problematic for the 1921 election as the majority of the electors had rejected membership of that state. Using Southern Ireland is problematic because that state only existed on paper for 18 months. Using Irish Republic is problematic because that was an illegal state that didn t call the election. So how the heck do you categorise the 1921 election The issue has absolutely nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was created in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 so all its elections belong in their own category. But whereas all elections there from 1921 can be kept together under one name, there is no one name that can be applied for elections outside NI. Southern Ireland is POV and anyway only could cover 1921-22 when it was abolished. The Free State only covers until 1937. The Republic covers from 1949. The 26 counties is a loaded Sinn Féin term that is too controversial. Elections in Ireland is the only workable category. It can cover all the elections on the island up to partition, and those outside NI from then on. NI could be used as a crossover subcategory in both British and Irish elections categories. That is the obvious NPOV way of doing it. But coming up with paranoid rubbish about it being some master plot to shaft Northern Ireland on wikipedia is diluded childish paranoia. 23:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Fergananim here. Before I chance my arm on a vote, I need a clearer understanding of the issues concerned from those who have taken an interest in this article. Namely,

Here is the situation as I understand it; feel free to comment if you feel I am wandering off-target or have it arseways.

Ireland is the offical name of the country that occupys the greater part of the island of Ireland. It is a republic, and soverign.

Northern Ireland is part of the country called the United Kingdom, or UK for short. As the name UK implies, Northern Ireland is a full and integrated unit of this county. As part of the UK, Northern Ireland occupys the north and north-eastern part of the island of Ireland.

Ireland - which we will henceforth refer to as the Republic of Ireland or just the Republic - and Northern Ireland are, thus, two distinct political units.

Because Ireland is the name of the island and the name of the Republic covering much of the island, AND part of the name denoting that part of the UK on the island of Ireland, there cannot but fail to be confusion.

Therefore - it seems to me - that we must have a very clear understanding of what we mean when we say Ireland , and elections in Ireland (plus variant of same). So please, refer back to me on your understanding of these terms, in explanations as simple as possible.

Oliver s concerns are that there is (quote) a political agenda at work here, part of an ongoing attempt to create a category system for Ireland which legitimises the Republican claim to the whole of the island of Ireland.

Now, could Oliver explain who he means by Republican I take it he means Sinn Fein and/or the SDLP, because neither the Republic nor any of its partys endorse the idea of a United Ireland. FearEireann calls his fears paranoid rubbish, but it is a fact that among more hardcore Republican partys, the ideal of a United Ireland (which would necessarily mean the political destruction of Northern Ireland) is openly stated as a goal.

These partys - okay, Sinn Fein - have besides their actual activities used demeaning terms such as statelet and more besides to deigerate a valid political term and unit. The same tactic has being used in their description of the Republic of Ireland as the 26 countys , and other terms besides.

In effect I am saying that actually, FearEireann, Oliver s concerns are neither paranoid nor rubbish but quite vaild and from his point of veiw, correct.

To anticipate a question of yours, Oliver, it may be said that certain partys in the Republic speck of a United Ireland. However, these are little more than lip service to an old idea which has little practical application in reality. In the words of one well-know politician from the Republic - Who the hell wants a millon and a half angry Unionists in the Republic Sure hav nt we enough troubles as it is with Ryanair

In any case, my own personal view of the matter is that as a result of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, in which the Republic of Ireland gave up any and all claim to the north, the Republic became, de facto, a united Ireland. And again, in a personal capacity, I have no problem with a United Ireland based on consent , but there is no historical basis for such a state and, as I said, I feel we have already achieved a united Ireland. But please people, file your arguments on this under the relevant heading, and not here.

I am not yet commiting myself to a vote, but surely it is obvious that we must deal with elections held on the island of Ireland under the heading of its various political units over the centuries, and, in the case of the Republic and Northern Ireland, seperatly After all, they are quite distinct and are of two different countrys. Does it not then boil down to a meat and potatos matter of classification *As what I said at 19:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC) :So keep the wrong name and add a PS - we know it is the wrong name. Just pretend that it isn t, ignore the name and add in articles that predate the Republic of Ireland . And have the current reversions that are happening to pre-1949 election articles, where users keep deleting the category saying these elections did not happen in the Republic of Ireland . That solution is amateurish, inaccurate and non-encyclopaedic. 19:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Move to Elections in Ireland, it is the name of the island, despite what anyone else may try to say in claims and accustations. 22:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) (a non-Catholic ulsterman, just to add more fuel here...) At least we can agree on what to call the island! Any suggestions for the categorys under that heading *Keep and as suggested (with an NPOV tweak) say in the intro: this covers elections since 1918/1921/1922 in what is now called the Republic of Ireland -- 02:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC) But seeing as it was not the Republic at that time, on what basis should those elections be included while those from 1922 to 1949 - which is implied - be left out *Keep 14:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

***Sure. An island does not have elections, a country does. Along those same lines, this category is a member of 19:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *****Simply because YOU had a CfD - in which the Irish vote was negligible - does not mean that another vote cannot be held. You ll have to try harder because your above ideas are seafoid . ****For 800 years the island and country were on and the same and the elections were called Irish . There are now two states on the island. One is called 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *****You ll Love This!!! I see you ve been soliciting for votes. Surely you won t mind if I contact a few myself By the way, if Republic of Ireland isn t right for anything that happened pre-1949, why don t you create a category that is right Basically, we can create the correct categories and subcategories and be accurate, or take your approach and be kind-of-but-not-really accurate. While we re lumping everything together, why not just get rid of all of the elections categories and create Elections on the Planet Earth Has a nice ring to it. (that last part was sarcasm, by the way, no need to tell people how someone is saying we should really do that) -- 13:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC) *******How can an intelligent conclusion and vote be arrived at unless as many Irish people, who known their nation s history, be solicited You imply that he did something low and underhanded in this, when in fact he should be applauded. ******Because, Kbdank71, there is no one name that can describe the various states on the island other than Northern Ireland, as has been repeatedly pointed. If there was, then we wouldn t need this debate. 17:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) *******So let s use Ireland as a supercategory, and create whatever else we need, including Republic of Ireland , as subcategories. So we have eight of them (or however many), so what Is it accurate That s what we should be aiming for. -- 17:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ********Good idea. And for the period between the abolition of the Irish Free State in 1937 and the creation of the Republic in 1949 we then use the name of the state in the constitution, which is . . . um . . . . Ireland. So Elections in Ireland would have a subcategory Elections in Ireland . Interesting idea. lol. 18:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ********** .

*Delete the category for Republic of Ireland and use Ireland instead for all states from Irish Republic . My reasoning is that Republic of Ireland is a discriptor and can be applied to that state only after April 1949 - to use it before then is wrong. Creating a multitude of subcatgories is uncalled for - this is where wikipedia really falls down. In particular Irish Republic and Southern Ireland had such short duration and fuzzy status that we would only be creating categories for the sake of it. Eire is totally inappropriate as this is not the states name, in English, irrespective of ideas to the contrary. Categories should not be created uncontrolled to confound, confuse and as pet-projects by people - a category Ireland is more than appropriate as the state is in Ireland (and notwithstanding that Ireland is the states official name in English since 1937) and this can cover a wide variety of states over time - how it offends or is a conspiracy is beyond me 18:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

*Delete the category for Republic of Ireland - the current situation makes no sense and common usage in the Republic of Ireland would tend to favour the term Elections in Ireland -- 20:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *Comment: It would be clearly better to have an Elections in Ireland category rather than this one. 07:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC) *Keep the category. It plainly belongs as a subcat of a category for Elections in Ireland, along with all the others listed in the intro. Move to 14:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC) *:Would 14:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC) :: I do not think so - �?ire does not cover everything from 1921 - it was first used officially in 1937 and it is an 14:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC) :::I would not entirely discount this suggestion. The main point is that there is no such country as the Republic of Ireland. To quote Article 4 of Bunreacht na hEireann , The name of the State is �?ire, or, in the English language, Ireland. , hence either Eire or Ireland would suffice. As this is an English wiki, Ireland would be better, but Eire would do, I suppose. 15:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC) ::::I have an objection to Eire, which is both that a: this is en:, not ga:; and b: its almost solely used in an insulting sense by people these days. People in Ireland would never use it, and I ve found most of us find it insulting. 15:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I d agree wit a:, but I have to say that I do not find it insulting. However, I have a clear preference for Ireland in this context and find Republic of Ireland completely unacceptable for reasons already given. 15:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I think �?ire would be a mistake. i. It would not cover any elections before 1937; ii. It is used in a rather condescending tone by some British newspapers in a way that has caused a negative reaction in Ireland, so it would cause offence and would trigger off endless reversion wars from Irish people who would be deeply offended by its use. Though it technically could be used, the way it is used provokes the sort of reaction that one would get, for example, if one called Germany Krautland or France Frogland . It is used by some anti-Irish elements in a rather snide way, a way they also use Southern Ireland or the way some Irish republicans call Northern Ireland the Occupied Six Counties . 17:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::Fair comment, but it is still our language. We have noting to be ashamed of in calling our country �?ire, should we so choose. Rather, those who use it in an offensive manner are the ones making themselves look and sound like amadans for being so culturally clueless and uncivilised. *Comment Their is a general misunderstanding of the states name in this section and its importance, 15:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Empty (and orphan) category. The article 19:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The page was created solely to put Pope Benedict XVI in it. Everyone was member of the HJ, shall we have 8 million people here They were only HJ members because they were forced to (well, most of them, at least). Category:German conscripts in WW2 would make a lot more sense, but should also be unnecessary. This category is as ridiculous as Category:People attending school in Germany . --83 *Delete 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

delete this ridiculous category. 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

*Delete Obviously intended as a policital slur. 05:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete 07:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete 08:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Strong Delete Though there were certainly some people who willingly joined the HJ, I must sadly say. -- 23:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) **Before membership became required by law, the HJ had some 100,000 members. When the law came into force, they had all of a sudden 8 million. *Delete. 08:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete Pointless category - 19:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled variant of 17:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Essentially redundant with slightly more general 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 15:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I think generally bad idea covers it. -- 17:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete. How about 04:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, a patently useless category when we have 09:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 15:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Contains only a talk page, and seems like an invitation to POV arguments. -- 16:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Looks like this category was created by accident ( 19:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC) *Keep I created this category, and was actually just getting around to re-populating it. If this title is POV bait, then under what heading should we classify the Oklahoma City bombing, the USS Cole incident, the Anthrax letters, etc. -- 12:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC) **I should point out that 2/3 of these incidents fit the definition of 02:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

rename -- 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To comply with Wikipedia s (misguided) capitalisation policy this should be 16:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 16:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Does not follow existing subcategorization structure (topical) of 16:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- 08:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The word POV is thrown around an awful lot. How exactly are these category titles POV - 16:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Because it blatantly implies that the U.S. are the only ones doing it. 17:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Inherently POV. -- 08:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete. What one person calls a terrorist, another calls a freedom fighter. -- 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

POV-named category with only one included article. Existing categories mean this is not necessary. 11:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 16:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This should be deleted. The creator misunderstood the term free , mixing up 08:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The creator did not misunderstand . If you look at the history of the Xenu s Link Sleuth article, you will see that I reverted my own adjustment to differentiate correctly between freeware and free software. This was timed before I created the category Free Windows web browsers . I also edited the definitions of the two categories Free software and Freeware to See also to the other - so that this definition could be more widely recognised. :The category Free Windows web browsers was created as a sub-category of the existing category Free Windows software using that category s definition of Free. All articles in Free windows web browsers were previously articles in Free Windows software . As such, category Free Windows web browsers is also a subcategory of Windows web browsers . The reason for creating the subcategory was that the Free Windows software article was large and needed some subcategorisation of its articles. :If you have a problem with this category, then you have a problem with the definition of Free in the previous category: Free Windows software ; you will have a problem with category Free Windows web servers which was created around the same time. 09:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*I don t get the point of this category at all. You re creating a subcategory of Windows web browsers that covers almost all Windows web browsers . All that accomplishes is to make it a little harder for people to find related articles. ¶ I m reluctant to go near the semantic argument -- the meaning of the term free software is one of those ideological debates people argue forever without really accomplishing anything. I think it s enough to say that the semantic issue isn t important enough to create a subcategory that hinders browsing the way this one does. --- 16:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Add 18:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

duplicate listing -- 14:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This should be renamed to should redirect to above. The 02:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Oppose - see above nominations. 11:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Note: This is already listed on April 27th. Please vote there. -- 14:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Should be pruned for U.S. Iraq War war-specific topics, as the term relations is not an NPOV euphemis for war or conflict . :I suspect this should really be 03:48, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) ::U.S Iraq relations is the proper form, and Iraqi is improper. The issue is pruning these articles of POV use. - 16:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *So what exactly is being nominated here 18:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== ==

delete -- 14:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Its parent category should be 19:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Agree with Dr.frog. -- 23:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Delete. redundant category -- 08:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)