Category talk:UK politics

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Tory.

Why did the category "british politics" get deleted? ħuman 01:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Because I felt it was unnecessary. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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? ħuman 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. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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? ħuman 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 $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 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? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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 $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 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. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:22, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I don't mind too much anyways. I don't mind repetitive edits in the least. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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 $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 23:25, 28 January 2009 (EST)