Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By country

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 15:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"By country" categories

[edit]

We have a lot of "Something_by_country" categories and a lot of inconsistency in naming. Sometimes, we see e.g. "French places", other times, e.g. "Places in France". In the cases nominated below, I propose that we standardize on the "Foo in/of/from CountryName" style. (There are other cases with the same problem, but which are more complicated or controversial.)

  • The adjective form is often akward, sometimes prompting people to inconsistently use the noun form as an adjective. Consider:
Category:Trinidad_and_Tobago_sportspeople
Category:Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis_sportspeople
Category:UAE_sport
Category:Quebec_politics
Category:New_Zealand_politics
Category:Congo_DR_sport
  • People often use improper or controversial adjective forms. It's Pakistani but Afghan, not Afghani. Argentine, not Argentinean. Some people consider "Northern Irish" to be just plain wrong. And we've had no end of argument between "American foo", "U.S. foo", "United States foo", etc.
  • Some people argue that the noun form is also clearer. "Irish foo" might, if misread, be interpreted as "Irish language foo" or "Ethnically Irish foo" as opposed to "Foo of France". Category:Indian_weapons - American Indian or subcontinental? I'm still confused about ethnicity vs. nationality in Slovak vs. Slovakian, and who really knows why the adjective form for The Netherlands is "Dutch"?

-- Beland 02:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a variation on Deutsch for German, due to shared lingusitic history. Wincoote 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The adjective form is more natural and it's easier to type.
Also, I acknowledge that I don't usually follow this page, but I think other places would be more appropriate for this topic (such as naming conventions, more general category pages, wikiproject for countries). I think interested people might not see it here. Maybe it would be good to at least mention it at the Village Pump. Maurreen 08:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The adjectival form is more confusing, and open to all of the problems that beland mentions above. Consider "Foo of Niger" and "Foo of Nigeria", for instance. I'm also getting fed up with ficxing the non-existent term "New Zealandian" which some Wikipedian seems to have invented. Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We spend a lot of time fighting over which adjective form to use, particular in cases such as Niger/Nigeria where the adjective in English is not clear. Avoiding the adjective is also an effective way to avoid having well-intentioned people attempt to invent a way around using American. I very much support this proposed standard. (Note: We're not generally talking about a massive change of all existing categories in each group. Quite often there are sister categories using both systems.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The adjective is more common, and may feel more natural, but the nouns don't have the disadvantages of the adjectives. Nouns would solve plenty of controversies, avoid a couple of misunderstandings, and hardly introduce any problems. In many instances it solves sensitive issues connected to minority ethnicities. Wikipedia ought to express preferance for nouns without expecting uncontroversial adjectivical forms to be (rapidly) converted. /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If the noun form is going to be used, I prefer "... of the USA" to other variations. And is "U.S. blah blah" controversial?Maurreen 06:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The short version: Yes. First of all, using U.S. as an adjective is much more common outside of the United States than it is in the United States. It is usually used as an adjective in an attempt to circumvent American, and as a consequence it has political connotations that we should avoid if possible. (I don't like USA just because I don't believe it's as commonly used anymore. Most people say United States, America, or U.S., the latter being generally more common outside of the United States.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm starting to pull out individual sections that seem to have reached a consensus for listing at /resolved under '"By country" categorization'. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My problem with the current apparent consensus is that it is focused on state boundaries and not on ethnicity, language and community definitions. This is most obviously illustrated by the 'stateless' or unresolved states, such as the "Palestinian" categories discussed. For the Basque Country, there are two definable geographical entities plus many people and institutions beyond that can be identified as Basque. So Category:Sportspeople of the Basque Country is not as useful as Category:Basque sportspeople. Kurdish categories necessarily straddle boundaries, so "of Kurdistan" does not make sense. Even with identified boundaries, there is too much grey with the "of foo" standard in many cases: Category:Serbian political parties is different to Category:Political parties of Serbia - there are many other examples in Central Europe alone. Perhaps we need both country and ethnic categories, but that seems overcomplicated. Mtiedemann 00:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I prefer the adjective form in many cases, and don't think an attempt should be made to ban it. Wincoote 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Standard form for country names

[edit]

Summary: Convention adopted, with no "X and Y" categories, and no "China" or "Taiwan".

When the pattern is "Foo of CountryName", I propose that the country name should be the same as it appears in the title of the article about that country, with an optional lowercase "the" if needed for grammatical purposes.

Entites on both the List of sovereign states and List_of_dependent_territories are currently included in "by country" categories. The European Union is also listed because it sometimes has its own category (for example, for EU elections). Those articles, and many titles, links, and references may need to be updated. Whatever standard forms we decide upon should also be submitted to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and documented there and/or on /resolved.

We also need to know what the convention will be so we can fix various By_country categories.

The following are the standard forms I think are appropriate, for the cases where there may be some ambiguity. -- Beland 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree I heartily endorse the category scheme for countries as Beland has laid out. I find the adjective form for the categories to be very problematic. I think the Whatever of Foo to be much better. Sortior 04:27, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree as well. Ye gods what have I started... Way to go, Beland! Grutness|hello? 11:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree /Tuomas 08:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Note: Links to articles are shown only for reference; links obviously cannot appear in the actual title of a category.)

Congo-Brazzaville:

Congo-Kinshasa (formerly Zaire):

China:

Taiwan:

OK, I myself am having second thoughts. Maybe "China" and "Taiwan" would be clearer. Or at the very least, "Republic of China (Taiwan)"? This would break the convention of sticking with what the articles are named, though. Unless, uh, the articles are renamed. -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • There's the question of Taiwan as referring to the island or the province, as any RoC category would cover more that one might intend, if they wished to only refer to the island of Formosa, or the province of Taiwan, and not all of the terrority controlled by the government of the Republic of China (which is not the same as the territory of the Republic of China... which is the same as the terroritory of the People's Republic of China). 132.205.45.110 22:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do refer to the following text in conventions previously set out with regards to the usage of the names "Republic of China" and "Taiwan": Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV--Huaiwei 08:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ireland, when separated:

Ireland, when combined:

Greek and Turkish Cyprus usually have combined categories:

Independent country:

U.S. territory:

USSR when it existed and Russia today:

USSR when it existed and the same geographic region today:

When considered separately:

Others:

-- Beland 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • Agree, but note some inconsistencies are possible with the leading definite article. You've caught "The Gambia" well, but as I found out recently, talking of something being "in the Ukraine", whice seems correct in English, is actually disliked by Ukrainians. I note, BTW, that many Korean categories are combined for the whole peninsula - when not, the seem to use "North Korea" and "South Korea", IIRC. Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly hear journalists say things like "people in Ukraine", and I accept either "the Ukraine" or "Ukraine" to be correct. None of the existing article and category titles use "the", so I'm adding a note above to keep it that way. -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some more conventions...

As needed:

(Serbia and Montenegro are in a loose union; according to the article, Kosovo's status as a province of Serbia is disputed and it is currently under UN administration.)

At the (necessary) risk of opening a further can of worms, what convention ill be used for (FYRO) Macedonia? Grutness|hello? 11:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duh. Are you really going to do such a great reconstruction? Well, I agree, if you realy will be able to do this in right way, without the appearing tonns of red links :) My POV slightly differs in the following subtle moment: USSR when it existed and Russia today: * of Russia and the Soviet Union Namely, I think that it's not necessary to create superfluous categories like this one, because:

  • In the future someone may create up to 14 categories in the same style: of Ukraine and the Soviet Union, of Kazakhstan and the Soviet Union etc.
  • If somebody contributed to both, say, the science, of pre-Soviet or post-Soviet Russia and the science of the Soviet Union, then he/she simply will be listed in both Scientists of Russia and Scientists of the Soviet Union categories. Cmapm 18:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Standard preposition for island countries

[edit]

In "by country" categories, the preposition should be the same for all countries. For example, most countries have a "Category:Transportation in CountryName". Island nations should not have a "Category:Transportation on IslandName", even if there is only one island in the country. Instead, they should have the uniform, "Category:Transportation in CountryName".

Voting Summary: this was tough and I might have gotten it wrong ... Oppose - 3, Support - 1 after >1 month, with the consensus that the cases should be considered individually rather than as a group Courtland 00:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Articles to rename:

to Communications_in_the_U.S._Virgin_Islands
to Transportation_in_the_U.S._Virgin_Islands

Categories to rename:

    • I tend to agree here, although I feel the people of the Isle of Wight would be surprised to see the island suddenly upgraded to country status! Grutness|hello? 10:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not certain this is a useful move. There is a case to argue that these categories have all been named thus by their creators because this is the correct way to refer to that class of article. I'm not at all sure what difference there is in use of 'in' and 'on' when referring to a nation or not. There are also various Islands (such as the Channel Islands) which are arguably nations - or not. If you are going to make this change you should change all categories, or indeed all titles and text, referring to Islands to 'in'. This would be wrong. I'm from the Isle of Wight, not a nation or likely to ever be one. On the Isle of Wight (see what I did there?) the term used is invariably 'on'. I write using this term and I believe it to be correct, and indeed I would go so far as to say that to use 'in' is not just a less-favoured alternative, but wrong. I couldn't say what other English-speaking islands use, but for at least one Island it would be erroneous to make the change. Naturenet 23:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ah. perhaps personal bias was coming out for me (I live in the South Island of New Zealand!) Grutness|hello?
  • Oh, whoops. The Isle of Wight is not in the List of dependent territories; I think I must have confused it with the Isle of Man, (which is) while grepping on the word "Isle". Isle of Wight categories should not be changed, since it's an island which you are on, not a country or quasi-country you are in. -- Beland 02:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, after that prompt response, no objection. But I do wonder whether any of those other Island nations have the same convention as we do on the Isle of Wight. Otherwise why would they have created those categories as they are? But that's speculation, and if other islanders want to object, that's for them to do. Naturenet 08:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There are non-nation islands that use "in" rather than "on" - I've already mentioned NZ's South Island, and our North Island is another such. As is Tasmania. I'm not certain, but I think there's a more than reasonable chance the locals say "in" (or the local language equivalents) in/on Trinidad, Tobago, Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, Anglesey, Corsica, Sicily, Crete, Sardinia, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Newfoundland, Oahu... Perhaps once an island is a certain arbitrary size, it begins to feel less like an island (maybe when you can no longer see the sea from most parts of it). I think that local usage should prescribe whether"in" or "on" is used, since it's likely to be consistent among the vast majority of residents of each particular island. The hard task would be finding out which is used... Grutness|hello? 11:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
interpreted as OPPOSE
      • The Irish example may be of interest here, as it is a state and a bit. We say 'in' Ireland, but 'on' the island of Ireland. My vote would be to leave these categories alone as they have likely ben created by people who know what the local usage is. Filiocht 12:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
interpreted as OPPOSE
        • That is also my view. Unless someone has a good reason to show that the categories are in error I think there is no need for a policy decision to regularise a situation en masse which includes a number of individual cases which vary with no predictable pattern. There is no possibility of misinterpretation whichever preposition is used, so the trouble of changing them, and risk of introducing an (admittedly trivial) inaccuracy, seems to me to outweigh the benefit (if any) of making the change. Naturenet 17:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
interpreted as OPPOSE
        • Usage is "in" Trinidad, "in" Tobago, but "on" Chacachacare, Monos, or Gasparee (smaller offshore islands). Guettarda 14:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that if we're talking about the island, it should be on, about the nation, in. Pretty much what Filiocht said. So I think that will be a vote to rename, if I'm not mistaken. -Kbdank71 19:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
interpreted as SUPPORT
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:By_country&oldid=1138385331"