< June 30 July 2 >

July 1

Category:Boats designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boats designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel to Category:Ships designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Brunel designed ships, not boats, so clearly this category should be moved. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did design one boat, his chain-hauled dredger Bertha, so perhaps we should consider "Ships and boats by ..." Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: did you mean to remove this category from its head categories? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be in that head category anyway. The boat categories should be limited to boatbuilders, and I don't think we should mix ship and boat designers as it would be doing a disservice to people interested in boats. We may need a "Ships by designer" category if there is no existing alternative, then IMO it would make more sense to have Bertha and other such vessels in a separate boat category rather than in a mixed category. Gatoclass (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fair suggestion; even though the page Category:Ships notes that the distinction between ships and boats is variable, I would guess that if a designer has sufficient notable nautical works to justify a category, there is probably a consensus that he is noted for either one or the other. There is scope for more categories of ships by designer, e.g. the four listed in John W. Griffiths. (One place to start looking would be Category:Naval architects.) So I have struck out my follow-on suggestion above. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murders by person

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete and upmerge to Category:Deaths by person. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murders by person (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. All murders are committed by either a person or people. The category seems redundant.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean 'murders committed by people'; I didn't intend its scope to be misinterpreted in that way. This is a subcategory of Category:Deaths by person, which is why it is worded the way it is. It contains articles that are titled Murder of [victim's name]. I've added a brief description to the cat. Jim Michael (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just Category:Murders?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Murders contains articles about multiple murders as well. I thought it worth splitting off those about individual cases, as is done with Category:Deaths by person. Perhaps it should be changed to Category:Murders of individuals. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Murder victims. Would that not be the correct cat?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this cat for articles that are about notable murders of non-notable people. Subcategories of Category:Murder victims include articles such as John F. Kennedy, Sharon Tate, John Lennon, Jill Dando - biographies of notable people. Hence I believe this cat is worth keeping, though I think rename it to Murders of individuals. Jim Michael (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arab communities outside of Arab League

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Arab communities outside of Arab League to Category:Arab diaspora
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The purpose of these two categories is indistinguishable. Fayenatic (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unix science software

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unix science software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Large overlap with Category:Linux science software. Only two entries now, both are also in the other category. - Wojdyr (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is not a unique set of articles to put in this category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of company

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Types of company to Category:Types of business entity
Nominator's rationale: per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_24#Category:Types_of_companies, and to conform to main article Types of business entity. Mhockey (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Types of business entity be called Business entity? Do you propose creating Category:Business entities? Marcus Qwertyus 01:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason to rename Types of business entity. Business entity currently redirects to Business, which is fine. And I don't think you need a Category:Business entities. We have Category:Legal entities and Category:Organizations, which is enough. If you mean that the tree headed by Category:Companies contains a very few subcategories of entities which are mostly not companies in the narrower sense (e.g. Category:Law firms), I don't see a problem with that. The difference is that Category:Types of company contains many articles on entity types which are not companies in the narrower sense. Types of companies was changed to Types of business entity for the same reason--Mhockey (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pikeville College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pikeville College to Category:University of Pikeville
Nominator's rationale: The institution officially changed its name to the University of Pikeville effective July 1, 2011. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pikeville College alumni

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pikeville College alumni to Category:University of Pikeville alumni
Nominator's rationale: The institution officially changed its name to the University of Pikeville effective July 1, 2011. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Future elections

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, without prejudice to creating a sub-category to hold the sub-categories by year as those have generally been scheduled. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Future elections to Category:Scheduled elections
Nominator's rationale: To match main category "Scheduled events". Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some future elections are not scheduled, except that they must be held before a particular year/date eg Next Irish general election which must be held by 8 April 2016, but may occur earlier (possibly years earlier if the government loses a vote of confidence). I believe that while the UK parliament is elected for 5 years, the governing party generally calls a new election before the last possible date. Hugo999 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Future referendums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, without prejudice to creating a sub-category to hold the sub-categories by year as those have generally been scheduled. Change of plural form is rejected for the reasons given below. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Future referendums to Category:Scheduled referendums
Nominator's rationale: To match main category "Scheduled events". Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional renaming referendums to proper plural of referenda. Vanisaac (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No "referendums" is the standard plural - see referendum - and the one used across Wikipedia - see Category:Referendums. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of "proper plural" assumes we are writting in Latin, which we are not. We are writting in English, and English assumes adding s pluralizes evertything unless there is overwhelming precedent for a different form. The general rule is if the word is not supper commonly used, add s because it is not used enough to have a special case of pluralizing. Also, langauge usage changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Future spaceflights

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Future spaceflights to Category:Scheduled spaceflights
Nominator's rationale: To match main and daughter category. ("Scheduled events" and "Scheduled human spaceflights" respectively. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rovas Scripts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rovas Scripts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created Category of disputed topics most if not all of which are up for AfD -- Evertype·✆ 10:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD topics were deleted. No rationale for this category remains. -- Evertype·✆ 07:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only contents are two sub-categories that are eligible for speedy deletion. Plus, the nomination rationale, above. Vanisaac (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Laotian people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Laotian people to Category:Lao people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since "Lao" is more common than "Laotian". When searching on Google, "Lao people" has 30,800,000 results, whereas "Laotian people" only has 57,100 results. Wikicentral (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laotian is clearly not equivalent to Siamese. Siamese was a perfectly good term when the official name of the country was Siam, but in 1939 the name of the country was changed to Thailand. On the other hand the issue of Lao verses Laotian does not have a historical precedent of changing something to make one form dominant over the other, so it is not an analogous situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessarily equivalent, however, "Siamese" is still used as an alternate form of Thai even in today's world, though less commonly used. You mentioned that "Siamese was a perfectly good term when the official name of the country was Siam". However, there has never been a country called Laotia, therefore, "Laotian people" has never been a perfectly good term using that same logic. Either way, you may disregard Siamese from this topic. It was just an example that was brought up after the fact. Since you disagree with the comparison, you may ignore the mentioning of Siamese and focus instead on the other points. Wikicentral (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of what the king once said before he died: "We Lao are also Thai, but we will never be Siamese". Nightw 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the English language, the country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic. The country is not called Laotian People's Democratic Republic.
2) An alternate name for Lao People's Democratic Republic is "Laos" (the plural of Lao, not Laotian).
3) It is more natural for English-speaking readers to extract "Lao people" rather than "Laotian people" from the country's name, which again is Lao People's Democratic Republic.
4) As verified by Google search in the English language, "Laotian people" yields about 57 thousand results, whereas "Lao people" yields over 30 million results.
5) The constitution of Lao People's Democratic Republic (http://www.un.int/lao/constitution.htm) clearly states "The multi-ethnic Lao people" in its preamble.
6) As you can see, the ethnic majority and all ethnic minorities in Lao PDR are collectively known as "Lao people".
7) Article 21 of the Lao constitution defines the following: "Lao citizens are the persons who hold Lao nationality as prescribed by law".
8) Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people states "People are usually categorized by their nationality".
9) Since "Lao people" refers to the nationality, the term "Laotian people" serves no additional purpose because it means the same thing as "Lao people".
10) There is also precedent for renaming a term to something else that is more frequently used in the English language as it is not uncommon to see editors replace a name with a more frequently used name in the English language and justifying their edits with supporting statistical information from Google results. Wikicentral (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference in meaning between "Lao" and "Laotian" except that "Lao" is the official term used in the constitution, whereas "Laotian" is just an alternate form. There is no distinction between those two terms, which is why "Laotian people" is unnecessary. For example, on [[1]], the text shows "So are you Thai, Japanese, Mien, Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino..." (Laotian, Mien, and Hmong are listed as separate ethnic groups). On [[2]], the text shows "Of the ethnic groups of Lao, Seattle is home to Laotian, Hmong, Mien, and Khmu populations." As you can see, by keeping the category as "Laotian people", you may be indirectly excluding Hmongs, Miens, and Khmus because the 'official' nationality of Laos is of the form "Lao people", not "Laotian people", though Laotian means the same thing as Lao, but it is not the official term and is less commonly used than "Lao". Just like "Lao", the term "Laotian" could mean either ethnicity or nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lao" : 1. A branch of the Thai people in South-East Asia; also, a member of this people. 2. A group of dialects spoken in Laos and neighbouring areas. 3. Of, concerning, or pertaining to the Lao or their language.
"Laotian" : 1. Of or pertaining to the country of Laos. 2. A native or inhabitant of Laos; also the language of the Laotian people.
I think this makes it clear that in the English language, the meaning of "Lao" is ethnical, whereas the meaning of "Laotian" is national. Since these are nationality categories, "Laotian" is appropriate per the OED defintions of the words. Thus, I have to oppose renaming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lao" : 1. A member of an indigenous people of Laos and northeastern Thailand. 2. The Tai language of the Lao, closely related to Thai. Also called Laotian
I think it is clear that dictionaries are created by people who do not necessarily share the same opinions. The OED definitions provided by Good Ol'factory indicate that a Laotian is "a native or inhabitant of Laos", whereas the Oxford Dictionaries definitions provided by me indicate that Lao is "a member of an indigenous people of Laos and northeastern Thailand". Therefore, depending on which dictionary source you choose to look at, either "Lao" or "Laotian" may refer to the natives (indigenous people) of Laos, which means that both terms may be ethnical.
There is no distinction between "Lao" and "Laotian" as far as ethnicity and nationality are concerned because the ethnic majority group in the Lao PDR is actually "Tai" (not to be confused with Thai), whereas the ethnic minority groups are "Hmong", "Khmu", "Mien", and others, which is why the Lao constitution clearly states that the Lao people are multi-ethnic.
For example, to refer to a Hmong by his Lao nationality, he would simply be "Lao". To refer to him by his ethnicity, he would be "Hmong".
The site http://www.laofamily.org/ takes you to a community-based organization that was founded by Vang Pao, a Hmong from Laos. His company's slogan says "Serving Hmong in Minnesota". Why did a (Lao) Hmong choose to name his company "Lao Family Community of Minnesota, Inc." rather than "Laotian Family Community of Minnesota, Inc." if the slogan states "Serving Hmong in Minnesota"? That's because "Lao" refers to the nationality.
To refer to a Mien by her Lao nationality, she would simply be "Lao". To refer to her by her ethnicity, she would be "Mien".
The site http://www.limcacenter.org/ takes you to "The Lao Iu Mien Culture Association, Inc. (LIMCA) is a non-profit community organization, incorporated in March 1982. LIMCA's mission is to preserve the culture heritage of the Iu Mien who came from the highland Lao tribal community". Again, "Lao" is the nationality, not "Laotian".
Again, the actual ethnicity of the ethnic majority that make up the bulk of the Lao population is Lao of "Tai" ancestry. The next biggest ethnic group is Lao of "Hmong" ancestry. You cannot maintain a distinction between "Lao" and "Laotian" because there has never been a distinction. Both terms may refer to ethnicity or nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is mixing up ethnic and country categories. The country's main ethnic group is Tai, whereas the country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic. The term "Lao people" refers to the nationality of the Lao PDR, which is why we should use "Lao people" as the category. If we wanted to use ethnic categories, we would be using "Tai people", "Hmong people", and "Khmu people". I'm simply proposing that we use "Lao people" because this form is more common than "Laotian people". Both forms refer to ethnicity or nationality. Based on Google results, the use of "Lao people" compared to "Laotian people" on the internet is favored by a ratio of about 540:1 (obtained by simply dividing 30,800,000 by 57,100, which are the number of results obtained by searching for "Lao people" and "Laotian people", respectively, on Google). That difference is too drastic to ignore. Wikicentral (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lao n., pl. Laos (esp. collectively) Lao for 1.: 1. a member of a people of Laos and northern Thailand. 2. the language of these people, belonging to the Thai group of languages.
Laotian n. 1. a native or inhabitant of Laos. 2. Lao. —adj. 3. of or pertaining to Laos, its people, or their language. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue. Lao is also both a noun and an adjective. Again, Lao and Laotian mean the same thing. This other Oxford dictionary available at http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/lao clearly shows "adjective" for Lao. It also supports the fact that Lao means "from or connected with Laos". Again, the meaning is no different than "Laotian" as they are two forms of the same thing. Wikicentral (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/lao
"Lao" means from or connected with Laos.
According to the Oxford-English Dictionary: OED
"Laotian" means Of or pertaining to the country of Laos.
Does "Of or pertaining to the country of Laos" not mean the same thing as "from or connected with Laos"? Therefore, why are some editors still claiming that Lao and Laotian mean different things? They clearly serve the same purpose. Wikicentral (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because some sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's New Universal Dictionary, suggests that there is a difference. I don't think it's clear-cut, and different people use the two words in different ways. Some treat them as equivalent but others do not. Given that, it seems reasonable to retain the usage that everyone agrees can refer to nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources like the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary suggest that the two words are the same. Therefore, we should not use dictionaries to determine a country's nationality. Besides, based on various conflicting sources, not everyone agrees that "Laotian" refers only to the nationality. Some sources suggest that "Laotian" is an ethnicity. Wikicentral (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see a source that suggests that "Laotian" is an ethnicity but not a nationality. Of course, it could be both, and some sources reflect that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since dictionaries could not provide a concrete distinction between the two terms, to decide whether to use "Lao people" or "Laotian people" we must instead focus on the other points that have been brought up in this discussion such as:
(1) The country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic, whose name evidently promotes the form "Lao people" over "Laotian people" as the nationality.
(2) The constitution of Lao PDR uses the term "Lao people" rather than "Laotian people" and "Lao nationality" rather than "Laotian nationality", which are important facts to take into consideration:
(a) The country's constitution (available at http://www.un.int/lao/constitution.htm) mentions "The multi-ethnic Lao people" in its preamble.
(b) Article 21 of the constitution states: "Lao citizens are the persons who hold Lao nationality as prescribed by law".
(3) "Lao people" is used about 450x more often than "Laotian people" on the internet (using numbers from Google results: 30,800,000 for "Lao people" and only 57,100 for "Laotian people").
Since we have not been able to concretely distinguish between "Lao" and "Laotian" (they deserve equal weight as far as nationality and ethnicity are concerned), and knowing at least those three points listed above, can anyone here provide reasonable justification as to why we should not use the more common form of the nationality (i.e. "Lao people")? Wikicentral (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this discussion is going in circles. Reasons have be provided as you have requested, and you've provided your counterarguments. Obviously there is disagreement as to the best course to follow here, but personally I have not been convinced as to your proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Lao" is equivalent to "British".
The word "Laotian" is equivalent to "Briton".
The following source explains it best: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/laos.htm
Nationality: Lao.
Term for Citizens: Laotian(s).
Similarly, we can construct the following...
Nationality: British.
Term for Citizens: Briton(s).
For example:
1) A Laotian went to the store / A Briton went to the store
2) She is Lao / She is British
3) They are Lao people / They are British people
However, we do not say "They are Briton people" / "They are Laotian people".
It is more correct to say "They are British people" / "They are Lao people".
When coupled with the word "people", "British" and "Lao" must be used because the words "Briton" and "Laotian" are standalone terms for the citizens of Great Britain and Laos, respectively, as illustrated above. Wikicentral (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following text was compiled from the following dictionaries: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/british and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/briton), Oxford Dictionaries (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Lao?region=us), and Oxford English Dictionary (referenced by Good Ol'factory):
1a) BRITISH - the Celtic language of the ancient Britons
1b) LAO - the Tai language of the Lao
2a) BRITON - a native or subject of Great Britain
2b) LAOTIAN - a native or inhabitant of Laos
The dictionary definitions support the form "Lao" being equivalent to "British", and the form "Laotian" being equivalent to "Briton". Wikicentral (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be cherry picking the definitions. British is an adjective which can refer to nationality, while Briton is just a noun. Laotian is both an adjective and a noun so it is not comparable. One can use it say describing Laotian politicians or as a noun to talk about an individual Laotian. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly said I was looking for common patterns in the definitions. Besides, Lao is also an adjective that can refer to nationality. Briton is also both an adjective and a noun as indicated at http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/briton.htm
BRITON (noun)
1. a native or inhabitant of Great Britain
BRITON (adjective)
1. characteristic of or associated with the Britons
The term "Briton politicians" also exists. The following source is an example: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23670013.html
Sudanese criticised for 15-day sentence on Briton Politicians and Muslim leaders condemn decision
Wikicentral (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can always create additional categories including Category:Lao people and Category:Siamese people, however, both "Lao" and "Laotian" may be used to refer to someone of any ethnicity from the state of Laos. (i.e. http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/lao shows that "Lao" means from or connected with Laos.) Therefore, categorizing Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as Lao would still associate him with the state of Laos. Whether we use Lao or Laotian, either term is associated with the state of Laos. I noticed that you also used the term "Siamese" rather than "Thai". Are you suggesting that Category:Thai people has a different meaning than Category:Siamese people, since you're also treating Category:Laotian people differently than Category:Lao people? Anyway, since both "Lao" and "Laotian" may be used to refer to anyone from the state of Laos regardless of ethnicity, depending on which dictionary source you use, perhaps Category:Laos people would be the more appropriate category to tag notable people from the state of Laos? Wikicentral (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors in Marvel comic book films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Category already deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors in Marvel comic book films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as per WP:OC#PERF. Nymf hideliho! 06:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Toll roads in Michigan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Toll roads in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Michigan doesn't have any toll roads, pure and simple. The only contents of this category is a subcategory for toll bridges. I propose just putting Category:Toll bridges in Michigan in the Category:Transportation in Michigan in place of this one and discarding a category that will never be used. Imzadi 1979 → 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century. With a large number of recent nominations in this area and multiple proposals it may be best to put the whole tree up for a super nomination to bring consistency. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century to Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete or maybe leave alone with a rewritten introduction. Delete is the best choice since this category is not supported by the text in most, if not all, of the articles. Rename since we tend to avoid classifying by previous usage. Rename as Category:14th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings since they were former RC church buildings repurposed for another use, even if a church for a different denomination, but then the introduction needs a rewrite to explain the inclusion criteria. But then what does former mean? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate rename to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings built in the 14th century. There are multiple reason for this. First off buildings are built, not established. Parishes, monastic associations or whatever you call it (even if it is just one monestery) are established, but they are not the buildings. There is no reason to limit this to buildings no longer used and we want it limited to things established in the century, otherwise we would set up a system to put buildings in each century during which they were used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like your last suggestion, but what would the sub-categories be called? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be ignoring the main issue. Church buildings are built, not established. Parishes, dioceses, deaconates and other Church structural apperatus are established, but Church buildings are built, and so the category needs to reflect that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But that is clearly not the only issue. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with built is that these buildings tend to undergo major reconstructions. So when you say build, what does it mean? There were objections to including built in category names. But as they say, consensus can change. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-cats could be Category:Lutheran church buildings converted from Roman Catholicism or Category:Roman Catholic church buildings converted to Lutheranism. I prefer the first, as it gives primacy to the latest use, complementing the builder's category Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. Likewise Category:Anglican church buildings converted from Roman Catholicism. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a CFD on June 9 that set this shorter pattern of "category:year thing" for church buildings. At the moment the longer pattern is only otherwise being used for bridges and amusement parks within the year-categories in Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion. I support nominating all these to be renamed to the short pattern, to match most other types of works in Category:Works by type and year. The pattern of "Things established in year" is fine for organisations, including church congregations within Category:Christian organizations by century; many articles on churches may end up with one category for the year of establishment and another for the year of completion/opening of the current building. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Boxers by weight class

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bantamweights to Category:Bantamweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Cruiserweights to Category:Cruiserweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Featherweights to Category:Featherweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Light-flyweights to Category:Light-flyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Flyweights to Category:Flyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Heavyweights to Category:Heavyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Light-heavyweights to Category:Light-heavyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Light-middleweights to Category:Light-middleweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Light-welterweights to Category:Light-welterweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Lightweights to Category:Lightweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Middleweights to Category:Middleweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Super flyweights to Category:Super-flyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Super-bantamweights to Category:Super-bantamweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Super-featherweights to Category:Super-featherweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Super-heavyweights to Category:Super-heavyweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Super-middleweights to Category:Super-middleweights boxers
Propose renaming Category:Welterweights to Category:Welterweight boxers
Propose renaming Category:Boxers by weight to Category:Boxers by weight class
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since many of these weight class names are used in sports other than boxing, it makes sense to specify that these are boxers. As for the last category listed, which is the container category for these—technically, these categories sort by "weight class", not by "weight" (the parent category is Category:Boxing weight classes). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More