Category talk:UK politics

Why did the category "british politics" get deleted?  ħ uman  01:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Because I felt it was unnecessary.  14:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * I see no more reason for a "British politics" cat than I do a "German politics", "Zimbabwean politics", "Venezuelan politics", "Italian politics", "American politics", and "Russian politics" categories. RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia, therefore there is no reason to pointlessly divide our political articles by country.  Dividing up what is only a handful of articles in the first place is fruitless and rather unhelpful.   14:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Why not? We have a lot of American politics articles, and probably quite a few British politics ones.  And a trickle on a few other countries.  We won't need all 180-odd countries, but I do think it's nice for people to be able to find a group of articles on one country's politics in one place.  And how come you never discuss these decisions before acting on them?  ħ uman  15:39, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * I realize now I should have talked it over first before deleting. I apologize for not doing so.
 * Additionally, you've changed my mind, Huw, and I'll be putting the "British politics" category back... along with an "American politics" category just to keep things fair. : )   18:51, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Er, should it be "American politics" or "United States politics"? I know "United States politics" is the politically-correct version, but it is also a bit of double standard—no one is calling British politics "United Kingdom politics".  I'm really leaning toward "American politics".   19:06, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * * sigh* Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica are both eminently unhelpful in this matter.  Both of them essentially wimp out and go with "Politics of/in the United States".  Which I refuse to go with because it's unnecessarily cumbersome for what should be a simply-named category.   20:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * You're right on "US politics" vs. "American", I think, for accuracy. Surely a Bolivian election would be considered "American politics", after all?  We could use the abbreviations and make them "US politics" and "UK politics"?  (Actually, couldn't a case be made for "British politics" including the Republic of Ireland ;) ?  Whatever's easy to remember, I guess?   ħ uman  21:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * UK politics and US politics are nice, short and easy to remember. I think categories in general are better constructed on a needs basis rather than on a consistency basis; e.g, we don't need a German politics category unless we have lots of German politics articles, rather than having one with one article in it just to be consistent. - User   21:55, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Thank you for responding, Huw and Pi.
 * I agree with you both. I think we should go with the abbreviated versions—"UK politics" and "US politics".  Any objections to me going ahead and cat/recatting the articles accordingly?   23:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Not really. Do you know any perl RA it could be quicker for you to write a bot for all this recatting you do? - User   23:12, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm afraid not—I don't know any Perl, or any amount of any programming language for that matter.  23:22, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * I don't mind too much anyways. I don't mind repetitive edits in the least.   23:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 * Oh well I don't know enough to help, although if I ever get it sorted I will send you something. Maybe Trent can reverse engineer on of his for you. - User   23:25, 28 January 2009 (EST)