Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Category names and Automatkarbin 5: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Splash (talk | contribs)
33,425 edits
 
 
Line 1:
{| border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" align="right"
==From Village Pump==
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#444444;" |
|-
! colspan="2" style="background:#444444;" | <font color=white>'''Ak 5 Specifications'''</font>
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Cartridge:'''
| [[5.56×45mm NATO]]
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''System of operation:'''
| -
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Length (stock extended):'''
| 1010 mm (39.76 in)
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Length (stock folded):'''
| 750 mm (29.53 in)
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Weight (no clip):'''
| 3.9 kg
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Weight (full clip):'''
| 4.5 kg
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Barrel:'''
| 450 mm (17.71 in)
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Rifling:'''
| 6 grooves, right hand twist
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Magazine capacity:'''
| 30 rounds
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Magazine type:'''
| detachable box
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Rate of fire:'''
| 650 or 700 rds/min (two modes)
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''[[Muzzle velocity]]:'''
| 930 m/s
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Sights:'''
| standard iron
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''Country of origin:'''
| [[Belgium]]/[[Sweden]]
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" align="right" | '''In production:'''
| 1985-
|}
The '''Ak 5''' (sometimes ''AK5'') is the [[Sweden|Swedish]] version of the [[FN FNC]] [[assault rifle]] with certain modifications, mostly to adapt the weapon to the Swedish climate. The Ak 5 is the standard weapon of the [[Swedish Army]]. Ak 5 is an abbreviation of ''automatkarbin 5'' (in English ''automatic carbine 5''). The rifle is also known as the '''CGA5''' meaning ''Carl Gustav Automatic carbine 5''.
 
There are several specialized versions available: the ''Ak 5B'' with a [[telescopic sight]] and a shortened version, the ''Ak 5D''. A modified version of the [[Colt]] [[M203]] grenade launcher can also be attached to the Ak 5. This setup is simply designated ''Ak 5 med granattillsats'' meaning "Ak 5 with grenade [launcher] attachment".
''<begin copy from Village Pump>''
 
==Ak 5B==
I just listed [[:Category:United States painters]] for merging/renaming to [[:Category:American painters]] on [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]]. Currently, the subcategories of [[:Category:American people]] lack uniformity, with it split between "United States", "U.S.", and "American", though most use the latter. I just wanted to make sure that this discussion got wider exposure, because based on past experience on the CfD page, I think the misplaced good intentions of a few have prevented a permanent and proper solution to the lack of category naming consistency.
'''Ak 5B''' is a version of the Ak 5 that is mounted with a [[SUSAT]] L9A1 tritium [[telescopic sight|sight]].
 
===Specifications===
The simple fact is that in all forms of English (not to mention through cognates in many other languages), "American" is the only term for referring to someone or something that is of the United States. This is regardless of the fact that this linguistic appropriation of an adjective that may have otherwise belong to two continents may be politically incorrect. The fact is that it's simply the way that it is. That's the convention.
*Weight (no clip): 4.8 kg
*Weight (full clip): 5.4 kg
 
==Ak 5C/Ak 5CF==
"United States painter" gets a paltry 603 google hits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors (alas, this awkward and obtuse phrase shows up in some article text). There is obviously no such linguistic usage, nor should we invent one. "United States" is not in any way an adjective. Or look at it this way: would anyone, regardless of what part of the world you live in, expect someone to say "Hi, I'm a United States"? or "Hi, I'm a U.S."? when they introduce themselves? Yeah, they could say "Hi, I'm from the U.S.", but if they want to use the simple noun form, or an adjective, no one would say anything but "I'm an American" or "I'm American." Even though "U.S." may have some currency as an adjective, 1) it primarily refers to the government, 2) its usage is definitely minor compared to "American", and 3) it simply doesn't work for people ("No, I'm not Canadian, I'm U.S.")
The '''Ak 5C''' is an updated version of the original Ak 5. It has no open sights, but is instead mounted with the [[MIL-STD-1913]] rail system on to which a wealth of different sights can be mounted, for example the SUSAT. The Ak 5C will most likely be the new standard weapon of the Swedish Army, together with the Ak 5D.
 
Before the Ak 5C goes in to [[mass production]] it is to be thoroughly evaluated. This is done by letting certain units try an experimental model called the '''Ak 5CF''' where F stands for the Swedish word ''försök'' (meaning, in this context, ''experiment''/''trial''). These are the new features of the Ak 5CF compared to the original Ak 5:
I've never seen anyone who has disagreed that this convention is binding or pervasive actually offer any evidence supporting that "American" does not overwhelmingly and dominantly mean "of the United States", or that there are other comparatively prominent and correct alternatives. Please let's fix this, or at least discuss it with relevance to our policies and actual terminology, not socio-political motivations. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 
*Black
See also [[Alternative words for American]], which is about how substitutes for "American" have failed to catch on. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 16:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
*Slidable and foldable butt
*New pistol-grip (similar to the one on [[Ksp 90]])
*Last-shot bolt hold-open
*Plastic magazines
*The MIL-STD-1913 rail system
*New forward grip (more stabile)
*Vertical forward grip (detachable)
*Only one gas mode
*New [[flash damper]]
*[[Bayonet]] socket
*Improved probability of functioning
*Tactical strap
 
Contrary to popular belief, the Ak 5 mounted with the [[Colt]] [[M203]] grenade launcher is ''not'' called the Ak 5C.
Whilst we're at it, then, could we standardise British and UK into British, since British is the term used to describe the nationality of citizens of the UK, as per the British passport. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 21:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 
==Ak 5D==
:I think the intention of the prevailing phrasing is to give possession of the person to the country. We'd have to rename a vast quantity of categories if this were changed... -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[[Image:bhak5d.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Picture of the AK5D]]
::The prevailing phrasing is actually "American ____": see the entries in [[:Category:American people by occupation]], which mostly use that form. Even were that not the case, the "prevailing phrasing" should be changed if it is incorrect (that's what bots are for, after all). The actual (and proper) convention in category naming of people is to apply the '''adjective form''' of the nationality, because that's what the English language uses. We don't have [[:Category:The Netherlands people]] or [[:Category:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics people]], we have [[:Category:Dutch people]] and [[:Category:Soviet people]]. The nonconformists in [[:Category:People by nationality]] are in the minority and should also be changed. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 21:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The latest modification of the Ak 5 is designated '''Ak 5D''' and most notably has a shorter [[Barrel (firearms)|barrel]]. Just as the Ak 5C it is mounted with the MIL-STD 1913 rail system to allow for easy mounting of a variety of sights.
 
Due to the smaller dimensions of the weapon, the Ak 5D is used especially by personnel in crowded spaces such as the Swedish [[urban warfare]] units and on certain marine units. The Swedish police are also equipped with a version of the Ak 5D, see below.
==18 July==
 
==CGA5C2==
:I seem to recall seeing a lot of discussion a few months back that proposed changing adjectival forms (e.g. Fooish Thingies) of category names to use genitive prepositional phrases (e.g. Thingies of Fooland). My recollection is that that this had general support for two reasons: the correct adjectival form of a place is not always obvious; and adjectival forms for places tend to be vaguer and more ambiguous. I can't find any proof of overarching consensus, and I certainly can't find it in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]], but I did find some relevant discussion in [[Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Political parties]], and [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12]]. This policy, if followed more widely, would bring us to "Painters of the United States" or "Painters of the United States of America" to avoid ambiguity. [[User:Bovlb|Bovlb]] 05:36:17, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
The '''CGA5C2''' (''Carl Gustav Automatic Carbine 5 C2'') was a prototype model during the development of the replacements/modifications to the original Ak 5 described in this article.
::That's one solution that is certainly preferable to ignoring a real convention in favor of a make-believe one, but it has a few drawbacks. One, the natural tendency in English is to label people by the adjectival form, and so absent those few obscure countries that don't have well known or obvious naming conventions, the adjectival categories are going to be continually recreated by those who don't know about the change. Two, your solution is the one that entails the most work at this point because it involves changing over nearly all of the people by nationality categories and subcategories. Quite a lot of work even for a bot, and too much work compared to the insignificance of the problems. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 05:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
*There is a guideline against abbreviations in titles, so "U.S." would fall short of that (however, it seems many people disagree with said guideline so maybe it needs further discussion). Since we're an encyclopedia, we should not use the word 'American' to refer to the country known as the United States, since in fact it refers to the entire continent. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 11:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
**However, what is the term used to define a citizen of the US? Isn't it American? Therefore, isn't it correct usage when describing somebody's nationality if they are of the USA? [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 13:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
**"In fact"? I'm getting rather frustrated and continually surprised by these absolute and incorrect statements from people otherwise reasonable. First, this isn't about referring to the country, it's about referring to things/people ''of'' the country, for which "United States" is '''improper''' and has ''no'' usage as an adjective (outside of the obtuse usages found on this site&mdash;google doesn't lie on this point). Second, "American" does not "in fact" refer to the entire continent except in '''minority''' usage, when not qualified by a modifier such as "North", "South", or "Latin". Note the qualification Britannica makes of what "Latin American literature" consists of,[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9106470] in contrast to unqualified "American literature."[http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=196309&ct=] I guess their editors are just ignorant about proper terminology? Third, there is '''no viable alternative''' to the use of "American" to refer to someone from the U.S. Please, anyone who wants to comment here, do more than just express an unelaborated opinion without support&mdash;that isn't accomplishing anything, and you're simply repeating opinions that have already been addressed in greater substance. This isn't a poll&mdash;we're trying to clarify and substantiate what the actual real world outside of Wikipedia '''uses''' in actual real world language. '''Not what we want to use or think better than what is actually used.''' [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
***The correct name is the ''United States of America''. It is not the short US or United States. As someone pointed out, ''American'' is already widely used to describe people from the USA. Try ''Ugly American''. Or ''Native American'' to describe the ''American Indians''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
**I suppose the CIA World Factbook got its terminology wrong too.[http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2110.html] If no one of the opposite opinion presents any evidence beyond unelaborated conclusory statements, we should just consider this matter resolved. Or perhaps we should take a vote on whether "African Americans" are really called "United States black people." [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed that we need a clear consensus on this. I recently tried ot have [[:category:U.S. philanthropists]] renamed to [[:category:American philanthropists]], to which the response was "Oh no let's rename it to [[:category:United States philanthropists]]" "agreed", etc. We need a clear consensus to name them [[:category:American foos]]. Category redirects don't work because I think creating blue links means that people are likely to think they exist and populate them in error. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc]]|[[User talk:duncharris|&#9786;]] 15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==CGA5P==
#Where is the guideline against abbreviations in titles?
The Swedish and Norwegian police are equipped with a special version of the Ak 5D called '''CGA5P''' or sometimes, incorrectly, Ak 5DP. Essentially it is a black Ak 5D (instead of the regular military green) with the automatic mode blocked with an [[Allen key|Allen screw]]. Unlike the Ak 5D, the police version has fixed sights but is still equipped with the MIL-STD 1913 rail system. Eventually, telescopic sights or [[red dot sights]] will be used. Unlike its military counterparts, the police version also has safety catches on both
#Should we move this discussion to a separate page? (If so, I'll save my reasoning for there.)
sides of the weapon.
#My preference, in descending order:
##American foo
##U.S. foo
##USA foo
##etc.
##Foo of the USA
##Foo of the United States [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==External links==
I'd agree to a seperate page. I can't find any mention of abbreviations at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]. However, are we covered by [[Wikipedia:Naming dispute]] here, in which case the common usage should apply? [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:Name|talk]] 18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
*[http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/FNC/ Buddy Hinton FNC / AK5 Picture Collection]
 
[[Category:Semi-automatic rifles]]
Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? I presume USA passports say (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that the USA passport proclaims an "American Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with the full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to have that debate or similar ones, either. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Assault rifles]]
''</end copy from Village Pump>''
[[Category:Military equipment of Sweden]]
 
[[sv:Ak 5]]
==19 July==
*American passports just say the name of the country. They don't give an adjectival or simple noun form (as British passports do, apparently). But this is irrelevant anyway because the issue is what the proper term is in the language, as real people use it, and what gov't bureaucrats happened to use in a particular context doesn't determine that. Do you actually have ''evidence'' of English language usage to back up your position? I've presented plenty. Most of the arguments I've seen are irrelevant too, because these are the underlying points as I see them:
#We take the language as we find it. Whatever things are most commonly called is what they should be called by us.
#What we want a linguistic convention to be is irrelevant, no matter if we think our way is better, more clear, more descriptive, etc.
#That a word may have some alternate meanings does not justify use of an alternative when there is an overwhelmingly dominant usage that is the presumption absent contextual clues to the contrary.
#Alternatives that have no comparatively prevalent actual usage in the language are not viable alternatives.
#It would be POV to disregard clear linguistic custom to placate socio-political interests. It is not POV to simply follow linguistic custom.
#Who may be offended by the convention is irrelevant, and "equitable" alternatives are irrelevant until they actually manage to change common usage (think of "[[womyn]]"...not a spelling we're going to use).
[[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
**Doesn't an American passport give the nationality on the page with the photograph. Mine lists me as a British Citizen, hence the term British should be used to define people and things said to be of the UK. Since the U.S. Department of State refers to American citizens, I would assume that would be the term used.[http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.html] I also think that the common usage is the best and clearest policy here. It's also worth noting that if citizens of the US refer to themselves as American, then Wikipedia should use the term when describing things or people of the US as per usage of English. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:steve block|talk]] 10:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 
*In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South Americas, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as Americans and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I have not yet performed any extra external research on the topic, this is just from personal experience, and the guidelines set out of the security personell (sp) during the 1996 Olympics. Athletes from Canada and Mexico made a formal protest about people referring to United States Olympians as American Olympians, such that both the Olympic committee and the military, made it policy for the rest of the event, to refer to them as United States Olympians. Ever since then, I have tried to refrain from using American, and simply state; "I am from the US". I believe to be both fair and uniform, we should follow the "<thing> of <country>" as proposed. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 08:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
#Another option is to follow the format of the title of the most-closely related article. Why should categories have different standards than article (other than those that are inherently dependent on form)?
#I expect that any uses of "United States" as an adjective are relatively few. Does anyone know of any non-WP style guide or writing guide that supports this? That is, mainly something used by people who write for a living or the general public?
#I believe it is WP convention to use the most common name. Is there any evidence that "American" is not most common, or that "United States" as an adjective is anywhere close to common, or that "foo of Country" is more common that "adjective foo"?
#Even if "American" is decided against, I see no need to be wordy. I think abbreviations would be acceptable here. I believe "U.S." and "USA" are very widely known, "U.S." or "US" are often used in articles, and they are probably more widely known than many other abbreviations used in WP.
#Tangentially, I think that sometimes standardization is carried too far. And I'm going to break up this discussion by date. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Just some comments:
::1. That would give [[United States of America]], [[United Kingdom]], [[Monaco]] without a shadow of a doubt. It would, I suspect lead to fights over "no, ''my'' article is more important than yours" at times, but I guess that's pretty easy to squash. EDIT: For some crazy reason, [[United States of America]] is a redirect to [[United States]]. Why??
::2. and 3. You are probably right on these points. But there is a question of geographic accuracy (which, [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]], is not an irrelevancy): American ''does'' necessarily refer to all the Americas unless qualified. I'm not arguing against it on this grounds, but it is true, as [[User:Who|Who]]'s example points out.
::4. U.S. is America-centric, there are other United Stateses, one of them called the United Mexican States for example. Again, geo-political accuracy is not an irrelevance. So if we go against "American" I'd prefer to see USA (or U.S.A.).
::5. I agree. This particular one though, does need settling as there seems to a CfD at least every other day related to the broader principle (i.e. countries other than than the USA). -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::1. Just for clarification, when I said the most-closely related article, I didn't mean the article for the country in general. I meant the article that was closest to the specific topic of the category, which would often be a list. I mean items such as those in [[:Category:Lists of people by nationality]] and [[:Category:Geography lists]]. A few more specific examples are:
*[[List of Australian Opposition Leaders]],
*[[List of U.S. televangelists]],
*[[List of African Americans]], and
*[[List of former members of the U.S. Senate]] [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
 
That's a good point. As it's been pointed out, "United States" is not an adjective. Don't let congress know about that, though. I'm sure the [[United States Senate]] [http://www.senate.gov] and [[United States House of Representatives]] [http://www.house.gov] would be miffed to hear they need to change their letterhead. And I suppose the [[President of the United States]] [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html] and the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/] would need to change also. Because common usage is "American". So, why can't we use (thing) of (country) again? --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::"U.S. is America-centric"??? That's like saying "[[Bill Clinton]]" is "William Jefferson Clinton-centric" because there are other "Bill Clintons" in the world. That's really a good example of how ''absurd'' this discussion has been, because you're either trying to turn a definition into a sign of cultural oppression, or just totally ignoring real world linguistic usage to invent a possibility of ambiguity, in what I can only understand as a politically motivated attempt to be "fair" or to undermine what you perceive as American hegemony. Both admirable motivations (particularly with the current corrupt U.S. government), but totally misguided when it comes to the simple fact of our language. Do you honestly believe that if any English speaker says "The president of the U.S. spoke on TV last night," that there will be great uncertainty as to who they're talking about? ("[[Vicente Fox]]? Really?") Mexico is not known by "U.S." in the English language. Mexico is not known by "United States" in the English language. Only one country is ''known'' by those terms in the English language. That's all that matters on this issue.
::And only the people of one country are known as "Americans" in the English language. Once again, '''gimme some evidence''' that "American" has the same widespread usage as "European" does as a continental reference (which seems to be what people are implying, though without showing evidence of this), or that absent "North", "South", "Central", or "Latin", that people will not presume it means of the U.S. (and I don't mean Mexico). And only "American" is the term by which the people of the United States (and I don't mean Mexico) are known by. ''That's'' accuracy. I've given you evidence for that, both of usage and academic definition. Gimme some evidence to the contrary other than unfounded concerns.
::Are you confused by "[[California]]" as to whether people mean the American state or the Mexican state of [[Baja California]]? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Ok, but you didn't answer ''why can't we use (thing) of (country) again?'' Or were you not responding to me? --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I was actually responding to Splash, up above. Sorry, the order gets a little confusing. As to why we can't just use thing of country, perhaps most importantly, it's not natural to do that with people in the English language&mdash;the convention is to use the adjectival form. And it's the option with the greatest amount of work; we'd be changing over the entire category scheme of [[:Category:People by nationality]] for all countries just to avoid using "American" for one. That's not a good reason. And perhaps least important, but nonetheless an issue, it could result in ambiguous connotations because normally "U.S." or "United States" are used instead of "American" to associate people with the federal government. [[:Category:American judges]], for example, when turned into [[:Category:Judges of the United States]] strongly implies that all of its contents are federal judges, which is not the case, and something that "American" does not connote. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::I think "President of the United States" is pretty natural. So is "Supreme Court of the United States". Conventions can be changed. As for how much work it will cause, we have bots for that who wouldn't complain one bit. As for American Judges, you can either preface Judges of the United States with an intro, or make two categories, Federal judges and State judges. This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Seriously, I respect your point of view on this matter, but this in my mind is a pretty good compromise. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Once again, your examples are titles of governmental offices/agencies. "Jerry Lewis is an American celebrity" is natural. "Jerry Lewis is a celebrity of the United States" is not, and seems to imply something other than just his nationality; is he a government spokesperson? Or only a celebrity within the U.S.? "Robert Rauschenberg is an American artist." Natural. "Robert Rauschenberg is an artist of the United States." Is he getting government pay and has a title? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::"Conventions can be changed." It's not our place to change them, any more than it is our place to change accepted fact based on original research or POV advocacy. We take the language as we find it. It would be POV of us to ignore conventions and create our own.
::::::I think the most acceptable substitute is to use "U.S." It's actually an adjective, and though it has some governmental connotation, it's not as strong as "of the United States." I'm still opposed to this, however, because there is a more proper term to use that has dominant usage worldwide and despite unfounded assertions to the contrary, clear meaning absent contextual signs to the contrary. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== 20 July ==
Confused by the seperation of discussion so starting a reply in 20 July for uniformity.
 
I think we have to look at this more of an encyclopedic reference point of view and not a ''literal one'' (as in spoken word). For a meager example, if you were to look in the Yellow Pages, for say "discount store", "super store", "general store", etc, whatever term you commonly refer to it as, you may not find them as they have been put in pre-defined category chosen by the consensus or publisher, generally "department stores" We all have a common way that we ''say'' things, but they are often referenced by a very specific category. I may refer to it as a "super market" and would probably find it referenced under "grocery stores". The point is, although in every day ''literal'' sense we say ''American'', but '''''we''''' being in the United States of America, understand it as just that. However, if I were to take a printed book to, say Canada, and reference anything other than them as American, although to me it may be understood, they are Americans as well, and are now being decluded just from my point of view of what American is. We far too often defer to commonly used slang words as accepted usage globally, what American in true context means is, United States American, to abbreviate it just for our sake of efficiency and comfort would not change the fact of what it really means, so why label it otherwise in any context? To address some of the concerns of "Judges of the United States", we quite simply add "by state", however pointless it ''may'' seem, it solves the problem of defining the category as Federal judges. I am not sure if we have moved on or began to address American ethnicities yet (African American, Chinese American, Italian Americans, etc.), so I will only put in the phrase "PC (politically correct)" to be used in further discussions, please ask me to comment when we move on to that topic. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 04:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*So you're stating that Canadians commonly use and understand "American" to mean "of the continents of North and South America," and will not use it or understand it to mean "of the United States." Some quick googling suggests that's not the case; though "U.S." is also used, "American" is clearly used by Canadian media outlets to refer to the United States.[http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=03b80c54-3c80-4189-b9b2-0b86dff82b46],[http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-19T231925Z_01_N19389245_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-WEATHER-EMILY-COL.XML],[http://www.canada.com/businesscentre/story.html?id=29b56472-83e4-4433-97bb-f1aee384f34e],[http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Swimming/2005/07/19/1138776-cp.html],[http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=6b713966-5aef-42b0-b663-8c14e3cf4077],[http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/reid071905.htm],[http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_national.asp?id=84639],[http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=ee03f178-d4c9-40d8-861b-a5d1865f2e8e],[http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Sears_Val/2005/07/18/1137490.html] and [http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050719/w071980.html this significant usage] by a prominent Canadian politician speaking to Canadian press. Do you have proof to the contrary? Everyone keeps on claiming confusion in other countries, yet no one has explained how this confusion can really exist when so many non-American media outlets use "American." [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Actually no I wasn't statiing it unequivically, just as a reference to another continental American group. Although we can cite resources on word usage, my main point is the actual country name is United States of America, so without any doubt, I could find listings for peoples, objects, etc... under this category, rather than wonder if the articles listed under American is North, South, Central, I just suggest we use the proper name and cut loose commonly used slang, which has come to be the norm. As for actual proof, the problem with media relating to titles, is most friendly govts and media outlets have referred to PC titles, as even used common literal terminology, so there isn't going to be much in finding someone actually using the full proper name, but it's still the proper name reguardless. Mainly for any reference sake, we use the full appropriate name of something, rather than a short or even commonly used one. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*And one final point...it's not merely your POV that they're not Americans if they don't call themselves American either (which they don't, just North Americans), and they call you American in a reference to your U.S. citizenship (which they do). That's not POV. That's the fact of the English language, however unjust it may be that the U.S. successfully appropriated that adjective. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*I agree that we coined the phrase, and I can not prove that I have personally witnessed the dislike of the usage from some peoples. Btw, I actually have Candadian friends that refer to them selves as American, and others that despise the title. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
The same is also apparently true of English-language Israeli media outlets,[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1121796128147],[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/602159.html], Lebanese,[http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=2651&CategoryID=3], and Chinese.[http://english.people.com.cn/200507/18/eng20050718_196807.html] [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*Ok, so you've giving evidence that some media outlets use American. You've also given evidence that they use "United States". You've also said that American ''almost always'' means "of the US". So basically, we're not making ANYTHING up by using United States. People use it all the time to refer to, the United States. And nothing else. People use American to refer to "of the United States", but they also use it to refer to other things. Seriously, I'm not seeing how your argument is holding much weight. Why are you so opposed to the compromises? --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
**"U.S." is the second best term to use. However, I'm still because all the arguments I've seen are based on hypothetical confusion and irrelevant offense, which actual widespread international usage of "American" to mean "U.S." belie. While there are undoubtedly occasions in which people have used "American" to mean "of the Americas," this is such a minor usage that the presumption is that it means "of the U.S." If, after substantially more people join in this discussion, the consensus is against "American", I can live with "U.S.," if only to prevent really inane alternatives from being adopted. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 10:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Country vs nationality ==
 
I believe this is a false argument, since categorising by nationality is categorising by nation, the term nationality literally meaning ''of nation''. I also think it's a blind alley, since if we start categorising by nation we run into horrible things with countries which change their names, especially the United Kingdom where it is far easier to categorise by nationality, which has been constantly British since the union of the two crowns, rather than by country name, which has changed over the years. How would one then categorise the British monarchy? Would it be categorised in parts, with the monarchy of Great Britain, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, without then igniting the already bubbling arguments about whether it is also the monarchy of Canada and so on.
 
I find this seems to boil down to the fact that people do not want to use American to describe the nationality of those people and objects of the USA. However, surely common usage and the manual of style trump that. If The US government uses the term American to describe the nationality of its citizens, and the people themselves do, then we should reflect that term. Any confusion can quickly be ameliorated by the paragraph which describes the contents of the category. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:steve block|talk]] 13:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
*I disagree with that argument. Just because systemic bias is present in the real world, doesn't mean we should have it in Wikipedia. [[WP:CSB]] was created precisely to prevent that. Just because the majority of Wikipedians live in the USA doesn't mean that the meaning of any term as used in the USA should trump that term's meaning worldwide. We strive for correctness, after all, not for POV. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 14:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 
:And is there any indication of actual confusion about "American"? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*And is there any indication of actual confusion about "United States"? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 17:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 
:*The problem is, it is just as much systematic bias the other way, in that the large number of wikipedians who do not live in the USA reject the term that the United States government uses about its own citizens. What other country would Wikipedia disregard the naming conventions of in this way? And if we are striving for correctness, why are you ignoring all the sources cited above and failing to cite any sources to back up your own argument? If there is any POV, then surely the POV is on the side of those that reject American because it has numerous meanings. I have yet to see anyone apply the same to British, which not only means a citizen of the UK but also an inhabitant of the British Isles, thus including Irish citizens. We also don't use Britisher, which is used to describe the British in N. America, because we respect the terms that a country uses to describe itself when determining which word to use. Are we really going to be renaming [[:Category:American football]]? And if not, where, then, lies the counter argument?
 
:*As to systematic bias in the real world, in the real world, the name of the country is technically America, in the same way that the Repiblic of Brazil is the country of Brazil and so on and so forth. So I question the validity of the systematic bias argument used against the term American. If it is common usage, is officially sanctioned and internationally recognised amongst English speaking countries, where is the problem in utilising the term in the english language Wikipedia? [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] [[User talk:steve block|talk]] 15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
:*The big problem here is that the Wikipedians who are rejecting the term that the U.S. uses for its own citizens do not reflect actual rejection of that term outside of Wikipedia. "American" almost always means "of the U.S." and (more importantly?) ''only'' "American" means "of the U.S." in the English language (and in cognates in many others) the whole world over. What the U.S. and its people use wouldn't matter if no one else followed it. But they do. I can't think of better evidence of non-U.S. English media usage than the BBC, and the widespread term "American football" (used in many, many languages, not just English) really clinches it. Unless someone would like to argue that non-Americans, when they hear "American football", think it just means soccer played in North and South America, or think Brazilians and Cubans are equally likely to be playing the non-"soccer" variant of football. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::*I'd be with you if "American" '''always''' means "of the U.S." But "almost always" isn't "always". You asked before if someone would be confused at the phrase, "President of the U.S.". No, the answer is no. So I ask again, what is the problem with (thing) of (country)? --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
:::*Sorry, I just saw your response to thing of country above. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Compromise with abbreviation==
 
Maybe we can get a consensus with compromise by abbreviating, such as in "U.S. foo"? [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*We're not there yet. Wait until those advocating against "American" present evidence on their side. Until then, the discussion isn't complete enough to move on to an alternative. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
**Doesn't mean we can't discuss it though. ''If'' we go with U.S., I see no reason not to go with U.S.A. &mdash; it's the proper name. Clamours for evidence aren't needed here, I can point you to any encyclopedia you like. ''And'', I can think of no sensible reason for omitting the 'A' other common, slang, usage. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
**And, declaring this to be "sides" is most confrontational. Can't we just discuss it a bit? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:If we do abbreviate, "U.S. foo" follows WP convention of using the most common name.
::True, but "most common name" shouldn't be mistaken for using what is just a convenience in speech/writing. The country's name is the United States of America (even if the WP article doesn't think so). I mean, we couldn't call the [[vacuum cleaner]]s article [[Hoover]]s, could we? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Remember we're talking about category names here. They need to be as concise as possible while still being clear. [[:Category:United States of America people]] not only sounds dumb, but it's unduly cumbersome. If we really want to be obsessed with "proper names," then [[:Category:German people]] should be replaced by [[:Category:Federal Republic of Germany people]], or even better, [[:Category:Bundesrepublik Deutschland people]], because the translated name is by no means the proper name. We'd also have [[:Category:Росси́йская Федера́ция people]] instead of [[:Category:Russian people]]. Oh, and we wouldn't have [[:Category:British people]], [[:Category:UK people]] or even [[:Category:United Kingdom people]]. We'd have [[:Category:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland people]]. Why on earth the article for that country is instead at [[United Kingdom]], I simply don't know. It's not the proper name. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 10:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::::You've seen the comments below, but on your final point. Personally, I think it ''should'' be at [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]]. Much as [[United States of America]] should not redirect to [[United States]]. I presume the "most common name" things applies, and shows that it doesn't really work for an ''encyclopedia''. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:And I respect [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]]'s request for evidence, but I doubt it will come to much. It appears that the strongest feelings are against "United States" and "American", and I am unsure that anyone who already has an opinion will be persuaded. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::About [[vacuum cleaner]]s -- that name is more common than [[Hoover]]s where I live. Also, I expect that the convention of using the most common name is to avoid disagreements about other issues. Often, using the most common name would settle the issue. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Ok, so that was a UK-centric example... -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Not necessarily i know plenty of people who refer to vacuum's as Hoovers, but you point being that just about every one I know also uses variations of "Coke", "[[soda]]", "pop", which none are the actual real name, and "Coke" would definately not be accepted as a title, as it is proper to an actual brand. So using any common/slang words, no matter how well known, are not good reasons for a title. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Compromise with word order ==
 
Maybe we can reach a compromise by using "<thing> of the United States" (or "... of the U.S.") - using this phrasing avoids the entire issue of whether or not it may be used as an adjective. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, this does seem like a good compromise way to go. Should we use "of" or "from"? Residence, or birth/citizenship? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 14:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
**I'd go with "of" because it allows for consistency with e.g. [[Economy of <country>]] (economy ''from'' country doesn't sound good does it). [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 14:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 
I see no need to be wordy. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
*Agree with <thing> '''of''' <foo>. As [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]] points out, it can be used easier with non biographical articles. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Formal names==
 
For those who say is "American" is just slang and want to use "United States", it would be parallel to use the formal names of all countries, such as "Republic of Abkhazia", "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", and so on, as given in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries#A list of countries]. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Formal name abbreviated==
 
:How about Radiant!'s bracketed suggestion? i.e. Things of the U.S. (or, my preference, ...of the U.S.A.)?-[[User:Splash|Splash]] 15:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::"USA" without periods is more common. That would be a reasonable compromise. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 16:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Ok, no periods it is. By way of dealing with your other examples (and the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]]), I suppose we mean to use the most common name for the country, or its most common abbreviation if that is more common than the most common name for the country (but nicely phrased!). So, I could live with "Things of the U.S.", too if that's the way the consensus flows. As for the UK...hmmm...I don't like the abbreviation, but that's a personal thing so it could be used for consistency (the UKoBGaNI is horrific). However, the IRA (for Afghanistan) would be overruled by the fact that "Afghanistan" is the most common name. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I'm still in favor of using "of the United States", as it's not the formal name (United States of America), and it's not an abbreviation, but I think I could live with "of the USA" (either with or without periods). It's still not the formal name, so we could still do "Afghanistan", etc. No opinion of what to do with UK. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 17:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:For me, "... of Afghanistan", etc., is fine as long as "of the USA" is OK. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I would prefer "United States", but that not being the full name, a compromise of USA would be favorable, although [[Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms|naming conventions]] isn't necessarily for acronyms, it would be hard to argue that USA meant anything else, and is clearly known to mean "United States of America". This said, if we apply this here, I think it would be suitable for use on UK, as questioned below. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 20:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
*Same here - I would prefer it spelled out, but given its length I'd certainly accept USA (or U.S.A. - I don't care which) as a good compromise. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
*U.S.A. is rarely used. Use "U.S." as the abbreviation, with periods. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 09:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
**Unless you go with "X of Foo", in which case use "United States." [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 10:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Alright, so is this section drifting toward the compromise we came here to get? I'm happy to run with either "Things of the USA" or "Things of the United States"; the latter seems to be the more widely wanted in here at the moment.
 
We should be specific over the choice for the USA and the UK given our systemic bias since that will settle many of the discussions in advance. Then, we should draft things something like "...use the most common name of the country, or the usual abbreviation for the country if that is more common..." and then CfD can, occasionally, <s>fight over</s> discuss which is the more common when we come across an obscure or new country. We need to keep ourselves in a job, after all.
 
==UK?==
 
Is "of the UK" OK? I defer to people of the UK, as the [[WP:MOS|style guide]] says, "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 17:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Being UKian, I can say that yes, "of the UK" is OK. Unlike with the US(A), there is no alternative abbreviation used. There's GB and NI (Northern Ireland) but they are obviously superseded by UK. Also, UK applies unequivocally to all the constituent parts. I don't know the appropriate rules for having periods or not in abbreviations: I seem to remember seeing a discussion of this somewhere; can anyone point me to it?-[[User:Splash|Splash]] 19:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:**Same thing as with USA above. Am I correct to assume that "UK" is more common than "U.K."? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:***Well, I would only write UK out of laziness, but I think it probably is more common. I'm not sure what would constitute a good source for that though; most websites would probably use it without periods. I suspect, though am not sure that U.K. is more accurate but I also suspect there is a grammatical/linguistic convention on these things. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 12:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Another Brit here. "Of the UK" - certainly not of UK - really is rather colloquial. U.K., if an abbreviation need be used at all, certainly would be the more formal approach. But first a question: when would U.K. be used over United Kingsom anyhows? [[User:Anadine|Anadine]] 16:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
::*In this particular context, it would be for consistency with a possible abbreviating of things like USA and USSR from their full names. See the discussions surrounding what do with the US/American cats elsewhere on the page. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what the UK proposal is suggesting. I hope this isn't an unworkable suggestion that we should use absurd and clumsy titles like "Painters of the U.K." or "Actors of the U.K". That isn't common usage. [[User:Jeff Watts|JW]] 22:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Russia?==
While we're on the subject...
#Economy of Russia
#Economy of the Soviet Union
#Economy of the USSR
 
...which? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 09:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
This one is a little more difficult. Are we speaking in histortic titles, (before or after the fall/break of of the "Soviet Union"), or the current name? (Which I can't recall atm). <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 09:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Option 1. I think that they should all come under the current name of the country (else we'll have to abolish the UK categories, because that's only about 150 years old or something). Using any historical name would be like calling the "Economy of Iraq" the "Economy of Mesopotamia". The articles, or the blurb in the cat page can indicate that it also covers historical names. I think we'd look a bit silly if we called the cat "Economy of the USSR" that having been disposed of 15 years ago! Also, it would be effectively arbitrary over ''which'' historical name we chose: always choosing the current name avoids that. (With some possible arbitraryness over which is "the most common form", but we can probably agree on that most of the time.) -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
*I'm not sure we shouldn't have it. Some people may want to read about what the economy of the old USSR was. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, there is a category for economy of east germany, probably for the same reason. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 13:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
**East Germany is still a place though, much like the North of England. I just think the history related articles belong in the cat for the current country: they deal with the history of ''that'' country. However, per Maureen's request below, I suggest we simplify: for now, the historical cats can remain as long as the naming format is Thing of Foo (with/out abbreviation), whether Foo is historical or not. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Arcane adjectives of nationality==
Standardize on the "Foo of Country" format. What are the adjectives of nationality of [[Guinea-Bissau]], [[Kiribati]], [[Saint Lucia]]? I have no idea. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Whilst clarity is important, the only problem with the examples you cite is, as you say, not knowing. They can be looked up though: Guinea-Bissau people are [http://www.indexmundi.com/guinea-bissau/nationality.html Guinean] (and in several other places, too), Kiribati people are [http://www.indexmundi.com/kiribati/nationality.html I-Kiribati] and Saint Lucia people are [http://www.indexmundi.com/saint_lucia/nationality.html Saint Lucian]. I still prefer the format you recommend however, with abbreviations if appropriate. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the site; duly bookmarked. And you make a good point about "Guinean" applying to more than one country -- very strong point in favor of this format. And OK, Saint Lucia was a giveaway. How about their neighbors in [[Saint Kitts and Nevis]]? Huh? Huh? [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 19:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:*Your new bookmark gives [http://www.indexmundi.com/saint_kitts_and_nevis/nationality.html either Kittitian or Nevisian] (another reason for going with country names). Sorry, couldn't resist :) [[User:Splash|Splash]] 19:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
:**The problem is exactly with not knowing. If many people don't know the correct adjective, they are likely to miscategorize their articles, or not being able to find what they're looking for. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
::Did anyone else notice [http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/nationality.html this] (ironic, don't you think)? If we're going to use indexmundi as the authority on nationality naming I think we're back to the original issue. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 03:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 
== Continents ==
 
There is a little subtlety to this one. Continents are so broad a categorization that it is tantamount to categorizing by ethnicity or race, but on a grand scale. On the other hand, there are only 7 such categories (within each field) so we don't lose much not-paper for having them. To deprecate cats by continent would seem to be Wiki attempting to deprecate continents which would be....odd.
 
What would call the cat that contains the various bits of the Americas? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
*[[:Category:Americas]] :) I have no problem with continent cats, just not placing the ''little'' things there that are widly different by region/country. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
*I suppose if we must categorize by continent, we call the category what the name of the continent is: North America, South America, Africa, Europe, etc. Or, if we absolutely must get more specific than that, Economy of North America, etc. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 13:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== States and provinces ==
 
I think it will be hard to suppress cat'ing on these grounds. Whether a particular case would be 'overcategorization' or not is probably best left to case-by-case analysis in CfD. It will cause fights over locals thinking the area warrants a cat and non-locals disagreeing, but there are just too many possible subtleties to decide with a blanket policy, imho. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 13:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
*Don't forget cities. Yeah, I'm thinking we don't want to get involved at this point with states/provinces/cities/etc right now. We'll have enough work to do with just countries. Case-by-case sounds fine. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 13:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Community involvement and notification ==
So considering the widespread change this would wreak in a substantial portion of the category structure, how do you propose sufficient notice be given to ensure that enough participate in the discussion? There are what, a half dozen people who have been discussing this here? More than that often vote in individual CfD discussions. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 10:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:This is a good point, I believe [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]] had a plan for noting it on RFC, and some of the VP discussions were moved here. Would anyone oppose a "banner" (similar to a cleanup template) placed on the current Cfd headers, possibly a link on the Main Page to either the WikiProject categories or here, to notify people of the discussions? <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 10:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
::Here is another example of what we could do. [[User:Who/Cfd]]. Temporarily modifying the templates, of course. Any comments or suggestions (feel free to edit the page)? <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 10:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:That seems sensible, with the words at the bottom emboldened or coloured or something. That, along with giving notice on RfC, the VP, the CfD page and in the box at [[WP:VfD]], (maybe over at TfD too, since this will probably apply there from time to time) there's not much more we can do. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 12:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I think the final notice should set forth the arguments for each category naming alternative and then provide for commenting and voting on each. I guess the first issue is whether the people categories should be kept in adjectival form or changed to "People of...X." If kept adjectival, should "United States people," "U.S. people," "U.S.A. people," or "American people" be used. If changed to "People of," should "of the U.S.," "of the United States" (my choice) or "of the United States of America" be used. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:There may not be any need for an (evil) poll if we generate a consensus. I cannot help but suppose the discussion we are having will just be rehashed as soon as we go to RfC; I wonder what we have achieved. I would suggest setting out on the project page the version as suggested (i.e. whatever we wind up with here). Then we can preface the talk page with the pros/cons of the compromise we reach here as compared to the other options. At least that way the discussion has somewhere useful to start, might avoid too much repetition and we will have achieved something other than mulling it over and then pressing the reset button!
:What do we do with this discussion when we go to RfC? Stick in an archive and give a link?
:I don't think we're ready to go (more) public yet...we didn't quite settle which form of things we compromise on. Another day or so? -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 04:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
::If only one alternative is set forth and it doesn't gain consensus support, then nothing has been accomplished and we still have an inconsistent category structure. All alternatives should be available so that one way or another, this issue should be resolved. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:::That's not quite what I meant: I mean ''start'' the discussion in a particular place seeing as we seem to be getting to a particular place here. Present the pro/cons of that, and then let the discussion go wherever it chooses; this might be somewhere else entirely or it might support what we agree amongst ourselves. By giving somewhere to start, and making the case for it in the first place I mean to avoid a simple rehash of what we did here. None of us would be bound to defend it necessarily as I imagine you will still prefer adjectival forms. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 04:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*It's now on RFC, as well as VFDPC. It'll take awhile for people to trickle in and of course this is not a vote anyway. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 07:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I've just added a note to the 'Special notices' section of CfD, too. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 16:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Case by case==
 
I'd like to suggest that we not try to standardize things unless there is either a clear need or clear consensus. In other words, although I named this page "Category titles", I think it's best to try to keep it mainly on any needed countries or nationalities for the time being.
 
Part of the reason I called the page "Category titles" was that I figured other types of categories would need to be decided eventually and it might as well all be together. Unless there is something else compelling, I think it would be best to at least wait until the current issue has been at least relatively settled. Thanks. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 14:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 
In line with the above, I just deleted from the project page the sections on continents and states and provinces. I was going to copy them here, but then decided against that. Of course, you're welcome to disagree. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 03:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*No problem. As long as we're discussing things, it's best to cover them one by one, and we're in no particular hurry. If it would be necessary to put this to some kind of vote (as per e.g. [[WP:TS]]) then it would be easier to compile four or five votes simultaneously. But I'd prefer discussion. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 15:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
== Ethnic subcategories ==
 
So if [[:Category:American people]] is changed to either [[:Category:U.S. people]] or [[:Category:People of the United States]], what then to be done with the likes of [[:Category:African Americans]] or [[:Category:Irish-Americans]] (which should be de-hyphenated, btw)? I personally never wanted to see these created in the first place, but presuming that ethnic/racial categories will exist, the naming inconsistency will be a problem, but there really is nothing else these can be moved to.
 
Considering how such ethnic identifications are largely a matter of self-identification, the terms that people actually use for these and for themselves are even more important than how someone labels their own nationality; nationality is by contrast an objectively verifiable fact that can be expressed by anything that just identifies the country (whether linguistically accurate or not), compared to the subjective and ultimately borderless categories of race and ethnicity. I also think we're really going to make Wikipedia look moronic (and likely offend, if that's a relevant consideration) if we create categories like [[:Category:United States black people]] (''really'' bloody stupid looking), or [[:Category:Black people of the United States]] (the color-based label is really inaccurate and disfavored) or [[:Category:People of African ancestry of the United States]] (really awkward). Keep in mind also that the article titles are [[African American]], [[Irish American]], etc., and you're going to have tons of people screaming bloody murder if an attempt is made to change the content of those. Plus usages of hybrid racial/continental identifications have to be exceedingly rare, if not non-existant, so the "ambiguous" argument used to justify generally not using "American" in category names to mean "of the U.S." isn't going to apply here. Thoughts? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 03:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Being that we have these categories, I think the only thing that makes sense is "African-American", "Irish American", etc. And these are compound modifiers, so they should be hyphenated. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*Personally I don't like such ethnic categories (I consider them bordering on discrimation) ''but'' let's settle that matter at a later date, after we get consensus on the thing-by-country issue. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 08:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
*I too dislike ethnic subcats, as I feel the cat'ing is too broad to extract any information of encyclopedic note. It is, however probably best to keep that discussion for later. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*Ditto. Don't like them, but push them off for later. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 18:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
**The issue of whether or not they should exist should be dealt with elsewhere, but changing the nationality naming system affects their nomenclature, and that should be dealt with as part of this problem. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 01:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
***I agree that it should be handled at a different time, after this issue is settled. It will just have to be a consession (sp) made to the outcome of this discssion, and it should be treated as an important note on consideration of this issue. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#00Ff00>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iquest;</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 01:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Between ourselves, we at least all seem to agree that these should be deleted. There's still some basis for Wikilove here... ; ) [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 01:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Google test==
 
I don't think Google should be relied on absolutely, but it can be useful as a rough guide as to how common things are.
*"U.S." -- 2,230,000,000
*"United States" -- 457,000,000
*"USA" -- 421,000,000 [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Keep in mind that Google includes URL hits in the search results, and as "United States Army" came up bold faced when I did a Google search of "USA", it apparently will also read the letters as a TLA and include hits that include terms that resolve to that acronym. You'd need to narrow the search to actual uses; no one's talking about the terms in the abstract, but only in how common they are as used for specific purposes. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Google's not terribly reliable for jobs like that, I'm afraid. Because of the way it handles punctuation and capitalization, I think those "U.S." links include a lot of pages inviting you to "contact us", etc., to say nothing of Toys R Us. Similarly, the USA pages include a whole bunch ''donde alguien usa algo''. I don't know if there's a way to make it more exact. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 04:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Here are my attempts at a proper comparison:
 
If we're talking about the form "Foo people", using artist as an example, "American artists" gets 528,000 (many of which may be "North American artists," "Native American artists", etc.). "US artists" gets 76,400 hits. "USA artists" gets 6,120 hits. "United States artists" gets 4,280, many of which appear to be false hits ("...United States. Artists...") rather than the actual singular term. The latter two shouldn't even be considered viable.
 
As for "People of Foo," "People of America" gets 183,000, "People of the United States" gets 607,000, "People of the US" gets 52,000, "People of the USA" gets 17,300. United States clearly wins in that form. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 05:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Good points made above.
*"artists of America" -- 24,000
*""artists of the Americas" -- 755 (There are two contintents with the word "America".) [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
*I think we're more important than Google, and we can set a new worldwide standard here if we want :) [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 15:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
*Google battles are OK over at VfD where it's a not-completely-lousy index of minimal notability. But wondering how many times "America"-like terms appear just leans toward the Internet's systemic bias (which is probably worse than ours). It'll pick up every teenage blogger that says "Proud to be American" or "Good Bless the USA" or whatever. What matters more from the WP perspective is how to be accurate without being obfuscatory. Also, in terms of the numers cited up top, I don't feel there is much distinction among them once you reach the millions, particularly as U.S. has those periods in it (for obvious reasons, but I suppose most times that abbreviation is used it is US). -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 17:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Trying to summ up the problem ==
 
So basically, we are trying to sort between three possibilities for categories dealing with geographical entities, which are currently found in three format:
 
#foo things
#fooian things
#things of foo
#things in foo (locations and phenomenons only)
 
So far, it has been pointed out that the first might be ungrammatical and troublesome when related to the actual names of the countries. (although how less than option 3, I'm not sure...). Option 3 does avoid the problem of strange or lesser known adjectives that will arise if categories are uniformized on option 2. Option 4 is often found in relation to locations (subcats of [[:Category:Mosques]] include British mosques, Jerusalem mosques and Mosques in Egypt...) but inconsistently, similarly, children of [[:Category:Rivers of Canada]] include all three of #1,2 and 3 ''and'' a [[list of rivers in Canada]].
 
The issue of abbreviations has been raised, which should not have to come into play AFAICT, until an option possibly involving it has actually been chosen.
 
I should add that "american football", while relevant as far as the use of "american" for "of the U.S." is concerned, it is not when the general format is concerned: American football is opposed specifically to Canadian football and football a.k.a. soccer, not to an eventual "Football of the United States" (which would be confusing with "Football in the United States" anyway...). *re-reads that* God, I think I've opened a can of worms here.
 
Some issues can be raised when the name of a country has changed over its history (e.g. Russia), in which case, the different names can be used to refer to different historic periods. Otherwise, they should be harmonized. The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories|WikiProject categories]] will be happy to try and do the required maintenance work.
 
That was my attempt at summing up the discussin so far. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 12:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Decent summary. I think we're all agreed that "American football" is the name of a sport and has no particular bearing on the country. As such, I could envision a [[:Category:American football of Sri Lanka]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 12:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 
:I disagree with separating any discussion of abbreviations. For one thing, some of us disgree with "United States foo" but more readily accept "U.S. foo." [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with Maurreen on this in the specific sense of country abbreviations &mdash; we're discussing how to name country cats fairly generally and so must really consider the abbreviation question too. (i.e. I don't think we're discussing DJs for example). -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 17:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I don't really understand what the objection is to "Fooian things". I don't think I've ever heard a reasonable explanation, only the argument that "we prefer Things of Foo", but "Fooian things" is preferable by far. It reflects common usage and avoids clumsy titles like "Painters of the United Kingdom". Before an attempt is made to change everything to "Things of Foo" it would be nice if someone could explain the general objection to "Fooian things" - and please don't say "we prefer Things of Foo", that isn't an argument in itself. [[User:Jeff Watts|JW]] 22:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:The objection is that not all nations have a clear cut, undisputed or well known adjective form that can be used in the "fooian things" pattern. It's not just the USA and American issue, but other nations and territores as well. For example what is the ajective form to describe a person from the Ivory Coast? United Arab Emirates? Western Sahara? Antigua and Barbuda? Bosnia and Herzegovina? And then there are fun stuff like French Guinea, Guinea And Equatorial Guinea (3 different nations) that's likely to get mixed together. Yes most of these do have an adjective form, but what is least confusing? "Emerati people" or "people of the United Arab Emirates" (and wich are peope more likely to find when they search for info on the nation)? IMHO the "Foo of (the) &lt;Nation name&gt;" is best because it avoids all those problems. Additionaly using the name of the nation rather than the (sometimes less known) ajective form makes it easier to find these categories when searching for info on a nation. Sure thinkgs like "German people" or "Italian people" works just fine, but it's not a "one size fits all", so it's better to use the "Foo of (the) &lt;Nation name&gt;" form as the norm, especialy for '''category names''' wich is what we are discussing here. -- [[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 15:39, 26 July 2005
 
::IMO we shouldn't be talking about an absolute rule here, but more of a guideline. The guideline could perfectly well say "'fooian things' is preferred", but then explain that if there is no commonly understood adjectival form for a country name "things of foo" should be used (and potentially even list the countries which should use either form). The point is to make the category names ''useful'', not to impose a rigid order. I believe category naming should follow the [[Principle_of_least_astonishment]]. If I'm looking for the category "fooian things", I should be able to type ''category:fooian things'' in the search box, hit "go", and have a very good chance of arriving at the right place. If our rule means categories end up with consistent, but not commonly used, names then we've failed. I also think the yardstick should be what would least astonish a novice user as opposed to someone who spends 10 hours a day editing wikipedia. This would be much easier if the software truly supported redirects for categories, which would allow categories to have multiple names. Since it doesn't (yet), we're pretty much forced to use a single name per category (although soft redirects are an option). I think my bottom line is we needn't insist on any single "one size fits all" solution. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 15:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Makes a lot of sense to me. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::IMHO a clear naming convention would be better than a "vague" guideline that leave it up the each editor to descide just how "commonly undersood" the adjectival form is. If we had one definitive convention categories could be speedily renamed to match the agreed upon pattern and minimise confution all round. I know definitive rules are usualy considered counter productive on the Wikipedia, but I feel this is one area where ''one'' "house style" is warranted. Granted a novice user would probably search for "''German scientists''" before "''Scientists of Germany''", but for the time beeing a soft redirect will quickly point them to the right place, and hopefully true category redirects will soon be implemented to save them that one click too. --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 16:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::I violently agree there should be a clear naming convention. On the other hand, I don't think the house style should astonish novices or needs to be stated as a simplistic "things of foo" (or "fooian things") rule. In particular, I doubt anyone would search for ''category:Scientists of Germany''. Also note that with the current software the capitalization must be exact in order to find this name (i.e. if "Things of Foo" is the category name searching for ''category:scientists of germany'' won't find it - try seaching for "category:People of dominica" vs. "category:aMeRiCAN peOPLe"). Actually, for this reason alone, I thing "Fooian things" should be preferred (seaches for "Fooian things" as long as "Fooian" is one word would be case insensitive). -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 18:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::'''Searches''' are case insensitive (as long as two articles doesn't exist with the same name, just different capitalisation). Searching for "category:aMeRiCAN peOPLe" takes you directly to "Category:American people". I think a bigger source of "astonishment" is the fact that categories are not included in searches at all by default. Had me confused for a while at least. The other problems can as mentioned be dealth wtih by soft (hopefully soon propper) category redirects IMHO. --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure what you mean. Searching for "People of dominica" in category space returns no results. Searching for "People of Dominica" finds the category. My point was that searches for "American people" are case insensitive, while searches for "People of Dominica" are case sensitive, which seems to be true as far as I can tell (it's only case insensitive if the article name is all initial caps or all lower case except for the first word - I'm sure the "go" button search works this way). I wouldn't expect category redirects to be implemented any time soon - they've been on the list for over year (although perhaps we should ask Brion Vibber or Jamesday). In any event, I think the basic question of what's most reasonable (least astonishing) hasn't been answered. Also as far as I can tell, the discussion above started with "fooian things" but morphed into "things of foo" for reasons other than "this is the form most people would expect". My main argument is that (IMO) this is pretty much the only rationale worth considering. If this reasoning (what most people would expect) leads us to "Things of Foo", I'm all for it. If some other reasoning leads us there, for example because this is the only simple rule we can think of that we know will work in all cases, I'm opposed. I know this paragraph is long enough already, but another reason not to use "Things of Foo" is that the preposition to use is not intuitively obvious (is it "of", "in", or "from", or does it depend on the kind of category?). "Fooian things" neatly avoids this problem. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 19:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Actually, I just ran a search in Category namespace for "People of dominica" and the first return was "Category:People of Dominica". As for being astonished, I can only go by my own experience, and that is I had no idea categories even existed, so I certainly wouldn't have been astonished to find it in one form or another. I can tell you this, if I was going to search for a category of "History of Trinidad and Tobago", and didn't know what it was called, I'd plug in "history trinidad" (w/out quotes) into the search box, and hey, guess what, "Category:History of Trinidad and Tobago" is the first return. I don't have to know what the adjective form of the country is. In fact, if the category was in the adjective form, I definitely wouldn't have found it. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 19:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::Very odd. I tried this as well (to see how "search" would work relative to "go") before posting the above and got no results at all. Trying it again, I find the category. I assume I screwed this up somehow (but distinctly remember changing the "d" to a "D" and finding the category - does search come and go dynamically based on current server load?). I'd much rather talk about what people expect than the vagaries of search anyway. I agree category names involving Trinidad and Tobago aren't obvious, but I don't generalize this to "no category names involving countries are obvious". I'd fully expect to find German artists under [[:category:German artists]] (and, I see from preview, that's where they are), not [[:category:Artists of Germany]] or [[:category:Artists of the Federal Republic of Germany]] or [[:category:Artists from Germany]]. If we standardize on a rule that says German artists are categorized in anything other than [[:category:German artists]] (and don't make it a soft redirect), I'll bet it would be recreated in this form shortly after moving the articles out of it. My point remains our rule should follow most people's expectations. This doesn't say much of anything about cases like "Trinadad and Tobago" or "United Arab Emirates", but it does apply to "German things", "French things", "Italian things", "Spanish things", "Japanese things", and many, many others. Zooming out a bit, I believe we're where we are because we want to avoid the disagreement over whether "American things" is POV or not. Avoiding arguments is a good thing, but (IMO) not at the expense of inventing arbitrary rules that don't match people's expectations. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 20:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I can't say what most people would expect. I can only go by what I would. Which would be the country name. Granted, I would also expect that if I didn't find what I was looking for, be it adjective or noun, I would try the other. I would also expect that if one category is one way, the others will be the same way. IE, if one is a noun, they'll all be nouns. So whether we talk about American foo vs foo of United States, or Spanish/Spain, or whatever/Trinidad and Tobago, we're moving toward a solution.
 
::::::Yes, I think search does come and go. Several times when things have been slow, I've been offered a Google search instead with the message "search is disabled to improve performance" or some such.
::::::I don't think there would be any problem in leaving behind a soft-redirect, and so there'd be little chance of a defuncted cat being recreated.
::::::We should choose a scheme that works for all countries, not just the well-known ones. No harm is done by having a uniform scheme that turns up in likely searches and can be helped along by soft-redirs until we get the real thing. -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Kurdistan? ==
 
Don't forget about groups that don't actually have countries, e.g. Kurds, Native Americans. &mdash;[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 01:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::Well etnicity and nationality are two completely seperate issues. I figure "people of Kurdish descent" would be a good pattern (theyr nationality would be either Iraqi or Turkish (or something else) depending on where they live), but what about the Jews? "people of Jewish descent" would not be acurate because it's also a religious identity... Although I suppose we could also add a "people of the Jewish faith" to seperate between etnic Jews and practisioners of the Jewish faith or something (ooh complicated). We could naturaly keep "Kurdish people" and such, but there can be confution if these groups ever get a nation. For example if the Palestinian people ever get theyr nation we'd end up with both "Palestinian people" and "people of Palestine" and people would no doubht get confused over what goes where. That's why I would suggest "people of Palestinian descent" for people belonging to the etnic group (is it a distinctive etnic group by he way?) regardles of nationality, and "people of Palestine" for people with a Palestinian citizenship (once such a nation actualy exist that is, currently it doesn't) regardles of entic afiliation. These things tend to get political though, many Kurds would for example argue that they are the "people of Kurdistan", but IMHO the "safest" thing to do is to reserve the "people of place" style for actual nations. --[[User:Sherool|Sherool]] 11:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:: It is extremely important to properly categorise category titles. What links the topics is what maters. Groups that dont have countries should be treated as such. Also, I really think people of Palestine, people of Kurdistan implies countries. Safest IMHO would be "Palestinian people" or "Kurdish people" or "Jewish people" (to define Jewish culture/data not necesarily linked to Israel). --[[User:Coolcat|Cool Cat]] [[User talk:Coolcat|<sup>My Talk</sup>]] 12:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Considering most of these categories will have "Foo by Country" as a supercategory, it won't matter if you use "Foo of Kurdistan" or "Kurdish foo", they will both imply a country. To solve that, we shouldn't be categorizing either under "foo by country". --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 15:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:: I sincerely believe each Native American tribe is quite uneque in its beliefes. So unifing them under one category is flawed. We could have a general category and sub categories for each "tribe" --[[User:Coolcat|Cool Cat]] [[User talk:Coolcat|<sup>My Talk</sup>]] 12:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I do not think that ethnicity and nationality are the same question. This discussion originally set out to work out category titles to group things according to their country of origin. This effectively became a question of nationailty or country. This is largely distinct from ethnicity, since the passport you carry does not depend on your political/religous or other beliefs (unless you renounce one citizenship and take another). I think the question of how to title country-related categories is best dealt with seperately from the whole question of ethnicity. It keeps the discussions and decisions clearer. In answer to the original question, there is no such place as Kurdistan, yet, nor Palestine, no matter how strong the politics, and nor is there such a place as Native America (apart from that corner of Arizona or something). -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 14:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:No not even that can be considered a country. NAtive Americans have some autonomy but not much. --[[User:Coolcat|Cool Cat]] [[User talk:Coolcat|<sup>My Talk</sup>]] 15:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Category_names"