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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 22#Soft redirected stub categories. — ξ ^xplicit 02:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region geography stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Aisén Region geography stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Biobío Region geography stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Soft-redirected stub categories are unnecessary. Dawynn ( talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I would usually be inclined to agree, because stub categories should be added through the stub template, rather than by direct categorisation. But in this case the inconsistent use of accented characters would make it hard to find the categories. The head article is at Bío Bío Region, yet the stub type is the unaccented {{ Biobío-geo-stub}}, and the category is Category:Bío Bío Region geography stubs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ ^xplicit 02:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland to Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: This terminology is not used in Irish govt or politics. In the constitution and in common usage, Ireland has "the government", and it has local government.

There is no broader "central government" category in Wikipedia, so this isn't even a matter of trying to squeeze Irish realities into existing wiki-conventions BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed. Pichpich ( talk) 13:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Why is the Constitution mentioned? I thought that primary sources were disallowed in support of arguments

The term Central government is hardly a novelty. Indeed the term is employed in the lead of the article Government of the United Kingdom: "the British Government, is the central government of the United Kingdom". In the case to hand, the main article for the category, Government of Ireland does not use the term "central" in the lead. Instead it states, "The Government of Ireland (Irish: Rialtas na hÉireann) is the cabinet that exercises executive authority in Ireland". The terms "cabinet" and "executive authority" are, to most people, synonymous with "central government". I would be quite content for the current category to use either of these two phrases.

A search of the site Gov shows 96 references to the term "Central Government". It invites viewers to "Explore more than 400 services that you can access online today", including the Abbey Theatre and Dublin Zoo. Only 16 of the serves are departments of central government. If the proposed merger was to proceed, the Abbey Theatre and Dublin Zoo would have to be added to the category which would not make it very fit for purpose.

An example from a near neighbour may be instructive. Like the current category, Category:Scottish Government is confined to "central" or "cabinet" or "executive authority" as defined by its eponymous article: "The Scottish Government (Scottish Gaelic: Riaghaltas na h-Alba, Scots: Scots Govrenment) is the executive branch of the devolved government of Scotland. It is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.". The parent category is Category:Government of Scotland which includes all those other things within the wider ambit of government (judiciary, laws, parliament, local government, government agencies, orders etc.).

The same is true for Category:Welsh Government which also limits itself to "central" functions, while not using that exact term. Again, I would not get overly concerned about the form of words; it is the effect that is important. Like Scotland, its parent category is Category:Government of Wales which has all the usual paraphernalia in its ambit.

If the categorical scheme is good enough for the countries of the UK, why is it not good enough for the ROI? Conversely, if it's wrong for the ROI it must also be wrong for the countries of the UK and so they would likewise have to be merged were this proposal to go ahead. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Primary sources are allowed; just not for things that are not simple facts. Not commenting one way or the other on the CfD, just on that point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that Bushranger. But as the niceties of constitutional law are far from "simple facts", I think you'll understand why I raised my eyebrows at the mention of it in the nominator's rationale. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• More silliness. Dublin Zoo is not a state entity. It is a private charity. If you really think that the Abbey Theatre belongs in Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland, then please, urgently, stay away from categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Response The personal tone is entirely unnecessary. A little more respect is in order but given the nominator's previous history, I know that that is a forlorn hope. The nominator herself makes use of the GOV website in the related discussion below so she can hardly complain when it is brought in here also. The point is that in citing that source approvingly, she must also bear the consequences of all of the site not just the bit that agrees with her argument. Since that site seems to think that the Abbey Theater is a quasi governemental organisation, then it logically follows that it must be so categorised. Now I personally would not agree with such a daft thing. But the logic is compelling. The alternative is to frankly admit that the site is a larger wrapper for the wider thing that is government in general and not cabinet government in particular as is the scope of the current category. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• • Comment Brown Haired Girl, you seem to have gone on the attack in your response to several nominations of late. I would encorage you to avoid broad generalizations and implying impure motives in your responses. We are supposed to assume good intent in others. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • JPL, there is a long long history of Laurel Lodged disruptively editing Irish categories, and wasting CFD's time with silly arguments such as this latest one of trying to bring Dublin Zoo (a private body) into a discussion about categorising government. I stand by my comments. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

And what of the Scottish and Welsh cases? Must they too be merged? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I doubt it. Are there two duplicate categories, one sensibly named and one not? Johnbod ( talk) 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Your response is unclear to me Johnbod. I'll assume that they were in good faith and will explain my position. The current category and it's parent ( Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland) are sensible because the former contains only those things that pertain to central/cabinet/executive exercise of authority in a state while the latter encompasses all the other concerns of government in general (law/judiciary/local govt/agencies of govt etc). This is not an unusual arrangement in wikipedia. There are many examples of it. There is immediate prececent in the case of our close neighbours in Scotland and Wales whose equivalent categories follow the same logic. I think that this addresses your concerns and hope that I seen your point. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't see this. Category:Government of Scotland covers all historical periods, and UK departments etc, and Category:Scottish Government the recent devolved government. No "cental" anywhere. Johnbod ( talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

In one sense it's not a "history" thing in that Category:Scottish Government only covers the central govt/cabinet/executive whereas Category:Government of Scotland includes wider powers of govt (inquiries/orders/law/parliament etc). In another sense, it is a "history" thing as Scotland has only enjoyed the former powers for a few years with most of the others being transferred or assumed by Westminster since the Acts of Union 1707. After the Acts of Union 1800 and prior to 1922, the same would have been true of Ireland. But nobody would now say that the Irish central govt/cabinet/executive thing is a "history" thing. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Red Hurley ( talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose There is a clear distinction between the Central Government and the local government (counties, municipalities, boroughs). That should not be mixed up. For instance, putting Department of Defence (Ireland) and Clare County Council in the same category makes no sense at all. There is no lack of space, so the national government and local government should be kept seperated. The Banner _talk 13:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I would like to agree with your logic, Banner, but local government in Ireland is in fact very tightly run by central government. Not like e.g. Catalonia or Texas that can issue bonds separately. Red Hurley ( talk) 22:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The Banner misunderstands the effect of the nomination. This proposed merger affects higher level categories, will not result in Department of Defence (Ireland) and Clare County Council in the same category. The Dept will remain in Category:Departments of State (Ireland), and the Council will remain in Category:County councils in the Republic of Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, I think that the Banner has a good grasp of the situation. The county council cat will report to Category:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. If this merger goes ahead then both Category:Departments of State (Ireland) and Category:Local government in the Republic of Ireland would report to the same parent category. As Banner rightly points out, this would imply a sort of equivalence between the two entities. The current schema on the other hand, prevents this association happening and all do not come together into the wider thing that is govt in the broadest sense until one stage later. This is as it should be. I apprecite Red Hurley's point too. I suppose that the current schema respects the legal theory as opposed to practical realities. But isn't that a distinction that's best made in the articles themselves? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Categories do not "report" to anything, and Banner is simply wrong to say that the Dept and the Council will end up in the same category.

Also, per WP:CAT#Overview, categories exist as a navigational device, and it is mistake to read too much more into them. The category tree reflects a navigational grouping of topics; it does not exist some sort of structure to precisely reflect hierarchies of power. It may sometimes be convenient to group things that way, but there are countless places in the category tree where entities of different importance exist alongside each other.

The analogies with Scotland and Wales are flawed, because neither is at present a sovereign state. As a result, the category structure there has to reflect the fact that the Scottish Government (the devolved administration) shares governmental responsibility with the Govt of the United Kingdom. That is not the case in the Republic of Ireland, which is not (and has never been) a devolved administration. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Technically, the Irish Free State was a Dominion within the Empire and so was a devolved administration. The Government of Ireland Act never formally recognised the Proclamation of the Republic that took place in 1916. The 1948 declaration of the republic was a description of a de facto state of affairs that had evolved since the 1920s. Whether or not it is devolved is in any case not germaine to the discussion; devolved or not, each type of administration has powers of a central/cabinet/executive nature and powers of a more general nature (local govt/medals/zoos/theatres) and so would benefit by being so categorised. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The Republic's technical Dominion status pre-1948 was, as you say, technical (at least in this respect). The imperial govt in London had no executive responsibility for day-to-day governance.

However, in Scotland the imperial govt had full governmental power for 271 years, and still has some reserved functions which exercised on a daily basis (e.g. in taxation). That extra layer of govt-from-without is why Scotland requires an extra level of categorisation which is not needed here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

It seems to be the nominator's position that an extra level of categorisation (from "central govt of Foo" to "Govt of Foo") is only required where Foo happens to be a devolved administration where a govt-from-without persists. If I read this correctly, then any govt that is not devolved, that has no govt-from-without should not have the extra level of categorisation. If so, this has wide implications for the categorisation of very many countries. For example, Category:Executive branches of government has 25 categories and 19 pages of countires that have the central/cabinet/executive layer and which also have the additional layer. This entire tree structure would have to be scrapped if the nominator's interpretation is correct. What an appaling vista. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Governmental structures vary widely around the globe, as do the terminologies used locally to describe the different aspects of govt. The terminological distinctions should be respected per WP:ENGVAR, and the structural diversity means that it would be unwise to try to adopt a common standard for categorisation.

That's why I have made no attempt to propose any universal structure, and LL's attempt to put words in my mouth is mistaken, I merely note that Scotland has a very different structure of govt, and hence is an inappropriate model for the Irish categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

While the nominator has not proposed an alternative structure, and incidentally, has notably declined to address Peterkingiron's suggestions, the contorted logic used in defence of the current nomination has had the effect of introducing a dichotomy in the use/non use of the tree structure based on the novel premise of devolvement/non devolvement and govt-from-without/non govt-from-without. It was not a case of "merely noting"; it was an attempt at introducing a novel rule. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Laurel, stop it. Disagreement is fine, but stop trying to misrepresent my words.

I quite explicitly did not attempt to introducing a rule, novel or otherwise. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The nominator should have an opportunity to set out, in her own words, why the Scottish and Welsh examples are not good precendents for the current categorisation schema but are still good precedents for the universal structure. For the complete avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of duller editors like myself. She might also care to cast her eye over Peterkingiron's suggestion below. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename somehow -- There is a distinction between the concept of government in general and the national government. I would suggest that the target Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland should become Category:Government in the Republic of Ireland, freeing the present merge target to be a rename target for the subject of this discussion. The analogy with Scotland and Wales does not exactly work, becasue there is no satisfactory adjective covering the Republic alone. My suggestion would imply a similar rename for the equivalent Scottihs and Irish categories. Headnotes will be needed to define the scope of the categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Support rename I enthusiastically support all Peterkingiron's recommendations above. The analysis of the Irish situation is on target. The idea that such a categorisation is unique to devolved administrations (such as exists in Scotland and Wales) is just straining the facts too far in order to support the original nominator's personal position. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Note categorisation history. This category is effectively a recreation of Category:Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland, another creation of Laurel Lodged ( talk · contribs), who created this one. It was upmerged at Cfd 2001 March 11. That creation followed an earlier rejection at CfD 2011 January 22 of a proposal by LL to rename Category:Irish Government to Category:Executive Government of the Republic of Ireland/
  The category being discussed here could have been speedily merged per WP:CSD#G4 as the re-creation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
  It's time for LL to stop unilaterally implementing changes to the category system which have already been rejected -- in this case, twice. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Current state of the nominator's rationale

"This terminology is not used in Irish govt". The Gov website says differently. Google searches say differently.

"In the constitution...". As Bushranger clarified, primary sources are not allowed where the facts are not simple facts. I pointed out that Constitutional law is not simple so this argument should be disregarded.

"Ireland has "the government", and it has local government". These facts are not in dispute. But they could just as easily support the current state of the categories. That is, have a cat for "the government" (this cat) and have another cat for "local government". Simples.

"There is no broader "central government" category in Wikipedia". This is demonstrably false. The cat Category:Executive branches of government has 25 categories and 19 pages of countries that have the central/cabinet/executive layer.

"Scottish and Welsh novel rule". While the nominator has denied that there was any attempt to introduce a novel rule, an invitation to explain her contorted logic, in her own words, has not been taken up.

I would invite those editors whose support for the nomination consisted of "per nom" and not much else, to look again at the rationale supplied and to state which, if any, is still pertinant to their decision. If they find, as I have found, that the arguments do not stack up, I invite them to take another look at Peterkingiron's sensible suggestions. Thank you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nominator's rationale. Can see no reason to create and populate this "central govt" category. (Isn't a term used in Ireland, isn't a term/parent category commonly used in Wikipedia, and the "problem" it purports to be created to solve [to differentiate local government bodies from bodies governed from Dublin] is a non-issue. In particular when one considers that the "Department of Local Government" is itself "centralised" to Dublin for oversight.) In short, this is an unnecessary and potentially misleading category. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment Guliolopez overly simplifies the need for the current category. It has the advantage of seperating out the important bits of "the government" from the things that are government in the broadest thing. Such things are not confined to local govt; they include the juciuary, the legislature, orders, badges, agencies of govt etc. To have such things proliferating unmediated in a general category would not be helpful to the reader. Indeed there were dozens of quangoes in that category until I packed them off to Category:Government agencies of the Republic of Ireland. Imagine the chaotic scene for the reader if these were still independently strewn about the category Govt of Ireland. Also, Guliolopez fails to say where he stands on the Scottish and Welsh precedents. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:59, 22 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:People from Ava, Missouri to Category:People from Douglas County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Chillicothe, Missouri to Category:People from Livingston County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Clarence, Missouri to Category:People from Shelby County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Clarkton, Missouri to Category:People from Dunklin County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Clayton, Missouri to Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Clinton, Missouri to Category:People from Henry County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Concordia, Missouri to Category:People from Lafayette County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Des Peres, Missouri to Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Desloge, Missouri to Category:People from Saint Francois County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Diamond, Missouri to Category:People from Newton County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Cuba, Missouri to Category:People from Crawford County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Corder, Missouri to Category:People from Lafayette County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Easton, Missouri to Category:People from Buchanan County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Eureka, Missouri to Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Higginsville, Missouri to Category:People from Lafayette County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Harrisonville, Missouri to Category:People from Cass County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Hamilton, Missouri to Category:People from Caldwell County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Hallsville, Missouri to Category:People from Boone County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Fulton, Missouri to Category:People from Callaway County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Ferguson, Missouri to Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Fenton, Missouri to Category:People from St. Louis County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Fayette, Missouri to Category:People from Howard County, Missouri
• Propose merging Category:People from Fairview, Missouri to Category:People from Newton County, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries ...William 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. Most have only one article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge all per nominator and per recent precedents at cfd. Oculi ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Gentlemen's clubs in London. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:London's gentlemen's clubs to Category:Gentlemen's clubs based in London

Nominator's rationale: Should probably be "Gentlemen's clubs in London" or even "Gentlemen's clubs based in London". There seems to be quiet a bit of inconsistency between this and the super categories. — Tom Morris ( talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename but to Category:Gentlemen's clubs in London. These are buildings where gentlemen meet, not diffuse associations. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Rename but to Category:Gentlemen's clubs in London per Peterkingiron. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Use "in" not "based in". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment What is The University Women's Club doing here then? I doubt the London Press Club fits the category, along with several others. There should certainly be at least one category here, but I think more thought is needed. Johnbod ( talk) 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment What sort of lap dancing clubs should be added? Some of the older clubs now admit women members and do these qualify? Red Hurley ( talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment the inclusion or exclusion of certain clubs does not seem to be altered by which name for is used. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment (voted above) -- The University Women's Club is probably in as being the one "gentlemen's club" for women: it is a gentlewomen's club, but there are too few to merit a category. Lap dancing clubs and such like are a very different species that abrogate to themselves the term "gentlemen's club", without having any de facto upper class entry requirement. This is enforced in the case of the London clubs by the level of subscription and/or a requirement for election, which has the effect of excluding the "lower orders". These difficulties can be dealt with by a headnote defining the scope of the cateogory. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:01, 15 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming
• Category:Ministry for the Environment, Community and Local Government to Category:Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government
• Category:Ministry of the Taoiseach to Category:Department of the Taoiseach
• Category:Ministry of Finance (Ireland) to Category:Department of Finance (Ireland)
• Category:Ministry of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to Category:Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
• Category:Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland) to Category:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all (as nominator). The term "ministry" is not used by the government of Ireland, nor AFAIK is it in common usage. The chunks of government controlled by cabinet ministers are all called "Departments", as can be seen from the list at at http://www.gov.ie/tag/departments/

The head articles have followed the official usage for as long I have followed them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename Conform (amongst others) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland) The Banner _talk 13:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. As BHG says above, both official (from at least as far back as the "Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924" here) and overwhelming everday usage (in the sense of WP:COMMON) is Department. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Observation Whille the eponymous article for Category:Ministry for the Environment, Community and Local Government is Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, a close cousin is named "Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Each "Department of Foo" is headed by a "Minister of Foo". The Department is the organisation, and Minister is the person in charge.

There's nothing at all complex or obscure about this. I got to the govt website's list in one click from http://www.gov.ie, and it's all set out in the articles on each Minister and each Department. It's disappointing that an long-established editor continues to create categories without doing very basic checks, and has not supported the renaming. (Creator's suppport would allow these changes to be speedied). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

@Laurel Lodged If you want to look at it from an ontological perspective, take a look at the legislation I linked to above, which is pretty much serves as a template for legislation used for creation of Departments. The Department is created first — as the legislation puts it "there shall be established .... the several Departments of State specified" — and then a Minister is appointed to be head of the Department — "the powers, duties and functions thereof shall be assigned to and administered by the Minister hereinafter named as head thereof". The Department is created first; the Minister is then assigned to be head of it. If Departments are merged or renamed, for example the Department of Magic is merged with the Department of Fisheries and the Gaeltacht, this is effected by use of a Statutory Instrument which changes the name of the Department first and then the title of the Minister, so the Dept of Magic, Fisheries and the Gaeltacht is created first, and then the Minister is assigned. (For example, here's the SI changing Dept. of Justice and Law Reform to Justice and Equality from last year [1]. In the rare cases such as exists at the moment where Alan Shatter is both Minister for Justice (etc) and seperately is Minister for Defence, the titles of the Departments aren't changed because of that fact, which leads into the next point. As for the title of the Minister, and the of/for question, you also have to bear in mind that a Minister is also a member of the Cabinet and his or her title principally refers to his responsibilites within the Cabinet; he or she is responsible for a particular area, such as Justice or Foreign Affairs. As for having a Minister in charge of a Department (rather than a Ministry), well it isn't an uniquely Irish situation and Ireland wasn't the first. Canada, Australia and South Africa used the system before us and the UK uses both systems, which is reflected in Wikipedia categories. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Specifically because Ministry of the Taoiseach makes no grammatical sense to me. Also why are some of and some for. Ministry is more of a UK thing than Department. Snappy ( talk) 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

See observation above for explanation of the for/of issue. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename to whatever the current official names are, but except for Category:Department of the Taoiseach adding "(Ireland)" to avoid confusion on Hotcat etc. Johnbod ( talk) 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Query Should all such cats have the "(Ireland)" disambiguator? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Probably some more departments than do already - look at, for example, Category:Culture ministries, although here the Irish name ( Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) is unlikely to get confused. Johnbod ( talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Category names usually follow the name of the head article. In this case some of the Depts needed the disambiguator and some didn't, so the categories will reflect that mix. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Red Hurley ( talk) 11:21, 13 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Verb types. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Verbs by type ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into its parent, Category:Verb types, as it is entirely redundant and thus serves no purpose. Cgingold ( talk) 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:Verb types and consider dismantling the other parent Category:Parts of speech by type (one of Stephanomione's mysterious ideas). Oculi ( talk) 11:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Whoa - nice catch, Oculi. I was very tired when I posted this and didn't even notice the whole ridiculous category structure! Another Stephanomione special. I certainly agree, the whole thing needs to be dismantled. Shall we add them here, or start another whole CFD? Cgingold ( talk) 23:39, 10 September 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The ratio between the number of deletion arguments versus the number of keep arguments is 1:1, and there was simply not enough support to rename this one way or another. The only consensus that was attainable is that the category is problematic, but there was no set way in handle it. — ξ ^xplicit 02:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Dr Pepper-flavored sodas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Original research. It's not evident that any of these are "similar" to Dr Pepper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I presumed that the members were taken from Dr_Pepper#Varieties. If so, they belong there, and not in a category, as it is too small. However, the nominator is right, it looks like original research based upon taste. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The category/template and Dr_Pepper#Varieties share no entries other than Dr. Pepper itself and Dublin Dr. Pepper (it is possible that I missed one in the details). Certainly neither the template nor category are lists of Cherry Dr. Pepper, Vanilla Dr. Pepper, Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper, Cherry Vanilla Diet Dr. Pepper, etc. Also, there are more entries in Dr_Pepper#Varieties (12 bullet points plus the original flavor) than in the category (7 entries) or template (8). I'm not familiar with the guideline, and I'm sure we have one...is there a minimum category size rule? -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think the problem here is one of size, but of original research and and subjectivity. Initially, it is easy to classify the flavours, but pretty soon you'll encounter blurry lines. If soft drink flavours are to be categorised, I would expect that the article Soft drink flavours exist first. There is probably room for this. Category:Flavors seems to be overlook the culinary aspect of flavour. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- the question of whehter the flavour is similar seems to depend on POV. This cannot be the basis for a valid category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Well-known category of sodas; no different that grouping together colas. May need a better name that doesn't refer specifically to one brand, but that isn't a reason to delete it. See here for an example of the category being used. oknazevad ( talk) 19:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep. (Notice this is cross-posted between the TFD and CFD). Having "Dr. Whatever" in the name is prima facie evidence that a soda is intended to be Dr. Pepper flavored; Dr. Enuf may be the exception that disproves the rule. Most of the pages have a specific (usually unsourced, except for Pibb Xtra) claim that the soda is supposed to be Dr. Pepper flavored. The solution to this problem is to source the pages better, not to delete the category and template. It's not original research - the people who made the soda either did or did not make it to resemble a highly-recognizable international brand name, the question is merely whether or not they wrote it down someplace where we can hyperlink to it. As we don't put sources in templates/categories, this is a problem for the original articles, not the category/template. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep The soda categories are a bit of a mess, but it's clear that there is room for categorization by flavor type, and if the degree of documentation isn't that good now, I don't think that it's going to be too hard to verify that the various members are intended to taste something like Dr. Pepper. Mangoe ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• If kept, it should be part of a structure of sodas by flavour (probably under Category:Soft drink flavors. And then, I don't think that one of them should be named for a trade name. Dr Pepper is a cherry flavour, or cherry cola, or variant of it, and it should be categorised as such, in or under Category:Cherry colas. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Pepper has always been marketed as having a unique taste. It is "cherry" about as much as root beer is.- choster ( talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I am sure that I taste cherry-additive in cola, plus other stuff I'm not sure about. Cherry Dr Pepper is even described as having a stronger cherry taste. Root beer? The cherry flavour is barely like fresh cherry, but neither is in root beer. Maybe it has to do with what I ate previously. Hopelessly subjective and unverified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• • • I agree that it should be part of a larger hierarchy: coca-cola/pepsi and generics (maybe those are two lists), orange sodas, grape sodas, root beers, clear citrus (Sprite, 7up), etc. What to name it is an interesting question, it's kind of unfortunate that the trade name is the most recognizable. They make Diet Cherry Dr. Pepper, so at the very least the Dr. Pepper people don't think it's cherry flavored already. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is an application of a trade-mark name to things not part of that trade mark, which we should avoid. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Then we should rename, not delete, as it still remains a valid categorization, like colas. oknazevad ( talk) 04:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete as subjective, and original research. There may be a case for other categories for sugary-carbonated-water-drinks, but there is nothing here to keep. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Listify This category was renamed less than a year ago ( CfD 2011/Oct/1 Pepper sodas), but for the most part, food and drink are categorized by major or distinctive ingredient (e.g. Category:Potato dishes‎, Category:Bacon drinks), by preparation ( Category:Baked goods), by brand/manufacturer ( Category:Ben & Jerry's ), or by cuisine ( Category:Pakistani fast food‎)— not by flavor. Quaker Instant Oatmeal doesn't get listed in Category:Maple and brown sugar-flavored foods and Category:Apple and cinnamon-flavored foods; Kraft Dinner isn't in Category:"Cheese"-flavored "foods"; and Vegemite isn't in Category:Obligatory Vegemite reference. This type of categorization is almost unique to carbonated soft drinks, and not really to the benefit of users. For example, Crush and Fanta are each listed in various categories under Category:Fruit sodas for their various flavors— of which the former claims about 50 and the latter about 100. Ultimately, this seems like an unsustainable scheme.- choster ( talk) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename back to Category:Pepper-flavored sodas or Category:Pepper sodas. As the nominator points out, these may or may not taste similar to Dr. Pepper - indeed, Mr. Pibb is a very different taste, while Dublin Dr. Pepper is wildly different from the national brand - but the pepper flavor as a group is defining for them. Note that the previous rename had a very weak and unclear consenus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support this, Category:Pepper-flavored sodas, as strong second choice. We should avoid using trade names unnecessarily. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• I support as well, since it may not always taste like Dr. Pepper (not that I ever drank the other flavors), but the flavors are more "peppery" than others, and like SmokeyJoe said, we shouldn't really use brand names. So we should go for Pepper-flavored sodas as a cat name. Zappa O Mati 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• The biggest issue with "Pepper flavored" is that some people are going to misconstrue that as referring to black pepper or hot peppers. That's exactly the confusion that lead to the current name in the previous CfD. That said, as I noted in my initial response, that is the most common name for them. oknazevad ( talk) 11:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep though not opposed to altering the name slightly. MaybeMaybeMaybe ( talk) 17:53, 11 October 2012 (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.