Category:Neighbourhoods of Thailand
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was Rename all, to X of <country> convention.--
cjllw ʘ
TALK
04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Australian law firms to
Category:Law firms of Australia
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To follow guideline by using 'companies of country'.
Vegaswikian
19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all per nom.
Jamie Mercer
22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment don't we used "based in" formulations for organizations - for profit or not?
Carlossuarez46
23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all per nom and per convention of both
Category:Companies by country and
Category:Law firms (only
Category:United Kingdom-based law firms used the "based" formulation). --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
00:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Osomec
12:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't rename - if 6 of one is as good as half a dozen of the other, I say go with the one that is shorter to type.
Blockinblox
13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Across the board 99% of categories of firms use the "of" form. Inconsistency does not save time, quite the opposite in fact, it wastes a great deal of it.
Haddiscoe
19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per convention.
Haddiscoe
19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all per nom.
Craig.Scott
12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mythological ships
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was keep.
Woohookitty
Woohoo!
05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Mythological ships (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, Procedural transfer of deletion proposal and discussion originally started on
Category talk:Mythological ships to correct forum.
Shirahadasha 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Original deletion proposal was:I propose that the category
Category:Mythological ships be deleted.
The reasons are 1. The very low number of entries makes it of limited usefulness. 2. It is controversial (see
Talk:Noah's Ark) that
Noah's Ark, the most well known 'ship' listed is in this category.
WP:CAT states "be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category".
ross
nixon
02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the category is serving exactly the function it supposed to, capturing ships from the mythologies of various cultures. If people are upset that Noah's Ark is included then they should resolve it as a content dispute not as a deletion attempt.
Otto4711
19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Just because the category is currently underpopulated does not mean that there are not many mythological ships that could be put in this category. There are many ships which appear in fables and legends, as well as ships whose dimensions or character indicate that they would be suitable for this category. I would include
Noah's Ark, Zeng He's Treasure ships,
Jason's
Argo and many others, including ships from Norse and Greek mythology, "ghost ships", ships from myths of the Pacific native peoples, and many others.--
Filll
20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep With 7 members already, it is not "small and unlikely to expand" - the policy specifies 3 for this.
Johnbod
20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Otto4711, Filll.-
gadfium
20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for the reasons above, content disputes should not be made into deletion debates.
Carlossuarez46
23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and there is no reason a mythological ship can't be real. Troy is a mythological city, but it's also real. Charlemagne is a real king that has large mythological elements to his story. Religion is a type of mythology anyways.
70.55.88.63
23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Note to closing admin: This issue raised a lot of contentious discussion on
Talk:Noah's Ark and this is a
Memorial Day weekend in the United States when doubtless many are away. I'd ask the closing admin to wait the full week, give the other side a chance to come back from vacation and comment, and make sure we have a discussion that includes the most vocal members of all sides so that we can close this matter in a way that can be respected by all as final. I'd suggest that
WP:SNOW based on early comments would not be a good idea here. Best, --
Shirahadasha
03:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I did a thorough cleanout of this category and harmonizing with
Category:Legendary ships,
Category:Ghost ships and
Category:Nautical lore while this was getting prodded. The category is clear about what it is for and is not uninhabited.--
ZayZayEM
03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Fill, John, Otto and the anon 70.55.99.63. Also, echoing Shira's point that we shouldn't snow this.
JoshuaZ
03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete KeepDelete For the record I think
Noah's ark was 100% mythological. However it is not at all clear that it was really a ship. The word ark only means vessel. There is no special reason to think that the ark could be steered, as a ship must or else it would be a barge. On the second thought I will just go ahead and remove the category from that article and that should take care of the "controversy." Sorry to have to change my vote back to delete. It seems like the category is doing more harm than good if it is a source of contention. Please check out the discussion page of the Ark article. Thanks.
Steve Dufour
04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- My proposed compromise was quickly reverted. I can see that feelings run high on both sides of the "controversy." However I still think it is the best solution.
Steve Dufour
04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The article on Noah's Ark is an outstanding source of information on the subject and covers all points of view. However, I get the feeling that the main reason for putting it in the category, or maybe even for the existence of the category itself, is to mock people who believe in the Bible literally; not to add to our understanding of the subject.
Steve Dufour
12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Or perhaps,
assuming good faith, it's an attempt to present the topic with a more expansive, less biased worldview.
Otto4711
13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think that there should be an article on mythological ships for people who are interested in the topic. The articles on individual ships could be linked from there, as well as Noah's Ark - which is kind of like a ship. Why is a category needed as well?
Steve Dufour
00:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Come on, everyone knows this category was only created for purposes of one POV to antagonize another POV, and has no genuine value. I'd like to AGF, but Steve is right.
Blockinblox
13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Everyone" knows it? I don't know it. The other people wanting this kept don't know it. Unless you're a mindreader or someone posted a message stating that they created the category for purposes of antagonism, you don't know it.
Otto4711
14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I understand what you are saying, but I am asserting that "deep down" everyone knows this is what it's for, even the people voting to keep and even the onees who created the article. Of course it can't be proven, it's just my assertion, okay?
Blockinblox
14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I'll bet that this category is up for deletion is purely as a result of
Noah's Ark. Now that I know the category exists, I'm going to add some more mythical ships to it.
Orangemarlin
04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The category is useful and NPOV. --
Gene_poole
04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It is too small and indeed POV (concerning the meaning of "mythology"), better place contents in "legendary ships".
Str1977
(smile back)
09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but Comment - make a more hard-and-fast distinction between "ships in myth" (eg, for sake of argument, those in the Iliad) and "ships that are so big that we can scarcely believe they were true" (eg
tessarakonteres,
treasure ship) - the former should be in this category, the latter should not. Suggest the latter are thrown out of the category and the category renamed, as suggested above, to something like
Category:Ships in mythology.
Neddyseagoon -
talk
11:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The controversy over inclusion on
Noah's Ark has been addressed multiple times, and the consensus has been to keep the tag, though a small minority have fought it.
Mythology is well-defined on Wikipedia, and it does not mean "fictional".
Sxeptomaniac
18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to "epic ships", "ships in religion", and/or similar.
User:Orangemarlin wrote on
Talk:Noah's Ark "This ship is a myth using the following definition from the
Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost dictionary in the English Language: A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin. This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for a biblical account. There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence. Hence it is mythological." Other editors have used the phrase "nothing more than mythology" in this discussion. I believe using a term that is nothing more than a synonym for "untrue or erroneous" in a category directly violates a fundamental tenet of
WP:NPOV, that Wikipedia does not express an editorial opinion on the truth or falsity of beliefs, claims, or doctrines. ("None of the views should be...asserted as being the truth.") Accordingly, I would propose renaming the category to a more
neutral and hence Wikipedia-appropriate term such as "epic ships" or similar (perhaps "ships in religion") that carries the idea of being the subject of culturally significant narratives without having the baggage accompanying a word that
User:Orangemarlin and many other editors have claimed is simply a synonym for "bogus". I had intended to be neutral on this issue with the idea that a "myth" could connote a culturally significant or culture-defining narrative, but the repeated use of the term "myth" to connote "falsehood" has convinced me that the term currently seems to carry too much baggage to be supportable. I could support the continued use of the term only if it meant, and was intended to mean, something consistent with
WP:NPOV. --
Shirahadasha
04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Epic ships" works for me.
Steve Dufour
04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Epic does not have the meaning that
Mythological does. I would oppose that wording more than
Legendary, which was previously suggested. I'll gladly support a change in wording if someone comes up with something close to the meaning of "mythological", but neither of those have quite the meaning we're looking for. I've watched
Noah's Ark long enough to notice that
User:Orangemarlin has a tendency to troll the talk page, antagonizing Christians (particularly biblical literalists). Once again, Orangemarlin has designed his/her wording in order to pick a fight, rather than make a reasoned point. The primary definition of Myth is: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
[1] Neither "epic" nor "legendary" have that particular meaning, and I don't think we should change it just because some people have a bad vocabulary.
Sxeptomaniac
05:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Epic would work if we were a little more informal here. In common American useage the Ark, the Titanic, and the Argo could all be called epic ships. As in, "That's really, like, epic!"
Steve Dufour
14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This is actually a formal definition of "epic" used as adjective. Miriam-Webster's on-line dictionary hsas: "1. of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; 2. extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope." Definition 3. of epic used as a noun is much more to the point, however: "a series of events or body of legend or tradition thought to form the proper subject of an epic." (Note:1 term is fair use). Epic has the sense of "great story" without the contemporary connotation of "bogus" or "false". I'm not tied to epic. Any word or phrase that gets the point across without also having a history of being potential
troll-bait would do fine. --
Shirahadasha
02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Synonym for bogus? No, I don't think so. Bogus is the
Creation museum. Bogus is
Intelligent design. I put Noah's Ark way above those ideas, in that it is a myth that is a powerful part of our cultural memory. I don't think it ever was around, but I don't think it is bogus. It is an important allegory, and should always be a part of Judeo-Christian teachings. The search for Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is the height of bogosity. You see, I think myth or mythological is much more positive than you are attributing to me. BTW, why is everyone attempting to read my mind????? Finally, epic may be acceptable, but not sure the meaning fits with this story.
Orangemarlin
02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I made the category because it needed to be made; prior to the extistance of this category someone put
Noah's Ark, along with the other ships in this category, into
Category:Fictional ships. While accurate, I think that the new category is much -more- accurate and indicates precisely what belongs in the category, though obviously the people who objected to its categorization as a fictional ship continue to argue over it. This is essentially an attempt to get the word "mythological" off of the
Noah's Ark page by fundamentalist Christians, and has been the source of much friction. This arises from a misunderstanding on their part of the word
mythology and they have apparently steadfastly refused to read that article. Please note that
Category:Abrahamic mythology exists. The fundies just don't like to see their religion categorized along with every other one, because they think they are special for some reason.
Titanium Dragon
01:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comments: 1) You say you made the cat? Looks like Csernica did, unless you are he. 2) "Along with every other one": If this is a case of treating the Judaeo-Christian Bible like other currently-popular religious books (let's avoid blatant pejoratives intended to insult, like "fundie"), can you show what other books considered sacred scripture by religions widely practised today, have had elements of them declared to be "mythology"? E.g. Are there any other articles about the miraclulous / supernatural stories and concepts from the Quran, the Buddhist Sutras, etc. that have been proclaimed by Wikipedia to be "mythology"? To me, it appears more like this one particular miraculous / supernatural story has been singled out for such treatment, for reasons that are unknown to me.
Blockinblox
12:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You're quite right; I misremembered. I suggested it but didn't do so. That's what I get for writing late at night and not thinking. I'll be glad to take the credit though :P
- More seriously... you mean other than every other religion? You know this as well as I. It took me 5 seconds to find Islamic mythology. See also Hindu mythology and Buddhist mythology. As those are the four biggest religions in the world, I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, in fact, we are treating them equally. Some fundamentalist Christians have this bizzare idea that Christianity is under more attack than any other religion; Islam is also extremely heavily criticized. Hinduism is much less criticized in the West because it is an Eastern religion, and Buddhism is much the same way (but has the added advantage of being, generally, a much more progressive and less offensive religion than the Abrahamic religions, and far less predisposed to try and teach fundamentalism in schools in the west). Yes, there are articles about other religions, and yes, we do in fact use the word mythology. It would take you five seconds to find these articles, and the fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something...
Titanium Dragon
08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "The fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something"? This sure sounds like you are trying real hard to point at a speck in my eye! But the fact is, I did bother. Right after I posted that yesterday, I spent two hours making a list of all articles from EVERY modern religion that are mislabeled as "mythology". I found there is actually very uneven application across Wikipedia: some religions like Zoroastrianism escape being stuck with mythology categories altogether, while "Mesoamerican" religions sidestep the distinction entirely. This is now being resolved at the appropriate place.
Blockinblox
11:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was rename all.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
Propose renaming all subcategories of
Category:American university and college presidents to take the form "Presidents of (institution)" rather than "(Institution) presidents," for consistency. This nomination follows up on
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#University presidents. In the prior CfD, the same rename was proposed and apparently gained (minimal) consensus, but the rename was not completed for the entire category when the CfD was closed.
These proposed new category names should be checked for consistency, particularly in the use of "the." Please feel free to correct or amend this proposal. --
Rbellin|
Talk
17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
Weak oppose. Why is one any better than the other? I almost prefer the way these are now, as they fit in with school-related alumni/people/etc categories. Do you also propose renaming
Category:Georgia Institute of Technology alumni to
Category:Alumni of the Georgia Institute of Technology? The phrasing is more awkward in the proposed names, too... at least on names that don't involve "University." —
Disavian (
talk/
contribs)
22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The main reason to favor renaming is consistency, as the categories are named inconsistently now using both forms, even though the prior CfD was done explicitly in the interest of a consistent form for all the categories. I favor the rename to "presidents of (X)" rather than "(X) presidents" because of (a) the analogy with
Category:Presidents by country, (b) the fact that (as one user objected during the previous CfD) the "(X) presidents" form is clearly not used in several specific cases, and (c) my limited Google spot-checking on several specific instances always indicated that usages of the former significantly outnumbered usages of the latter. And, just to be clear, this CfD is intended to apply only to these above-listed university-president categories, not to alumni or people or any other set of categories. (Also, in a few specific cases like Georgia Tech, which you mentioned, and MIT, there seems to me to be no overwhelming reason to use the full formal name of the university in the category name -- e.g. Virginia Tech's category is a counterexample -- but this should be discussed in a separate CfD at some other time. My proposal just stuck to the existing category names as closely as possible.) --
Rbellin|
Talk
03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. The new names will slip off the tongue more easily.
Jamie Mercer
22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom for clarity. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
00:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- rename per nom.
JoshuaZ
03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't rename - go with the shorter formulation, less typing. Otherwise, same difference.
Blockinblox
13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment
Category:American University presidents should be renamed to to
Category:Presidents of American University, as it is for presidents of
American University, not a general category.
Mairi
16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Good catch. I've fixed it. I'm not sure why
that was changed; it was clearly a mistake. In fact, this ambiguity in the "(X) presidents" category names for some universities (the ones with states or countries in their names) is an additional good reason to favor the "Presidents of (X)" form. --
Rbellin|
Talk
22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment One thing that is good about the system we use now is it is consistent with other categories for university people, for instance (x) alumni and (x) faculty, so it looks good on the university pages, for instance
Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a good example.
Danski14
(talk)
17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all per nom for accuracy and good style.
Craig.Scott
12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all. I nominated the last set the other direction, but I like this way just as much.--
Mike Selinker
22:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Merge into Comics conventions
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was merge
Category:Comic conventions into
Category:Comic book conventions.
After Midnight
0001
01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Comic conventions to
Category:Comics convention
- Propose renaming
Category:Comic book conventions to
Category:Comics convention
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Merge these two categories as they are redundant. Change the name to the plural form "comics". Comics is more inclusive as it also includes comic strips. Also, I have seen some discussion that "comic book" is an American idiom, so this will be a more universal name. Finally, it helps distinguish this category from a potential category for conventions of comedians. There was
some discussion of this at WikiProject Comics a few months ago.
GentlemanGhost
17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I agree that these should be merged as redundant, and your reasoning makes sense. I just can't find enough consistency in what the conventions themselves are called. Look at their names.
[2] I only found one with "Comics Convention" in the name, but then again, I only found one with "Comic Convention" in the name. There are a number with either "Comic Con" or "Comic Book Convention".
Doczilla
17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not absolutely married to a particular name. Any one of these three is fine with me; what's most important is that they are merged. In choosing what name to use, I tried to follow what was the consensus in the previous (linked) discussion. However, if a new consensus is reached for a different name, I will happily assent to it. Thanks for being on the ball, Doczilla! --
GentlemanGhost
18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:People opposed to apartheid
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was delete.
Woohookitty
Woohoo!
06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:People opposed to apartheid (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. "People opposed to apartheid" is just about everybody, save a few.
Category:Anti-apartheid activists adequately covers those people whose work or stance against apartheid is notable.
Ezeu
17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Jamie Mercer
22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Everything has someone that dislikes it. What next? People opposed to smoking?
TheBlazikenMaster
22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete by-opinion categories need to be really special to be useful; this ain't.
Carlossuarez46
23:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Carlossuarez46. Apart from our general disdain of by-opinion categories, this one shows up the limits of categories without time constraints. Anyone following South African events in the 1980s would have injured themselves laughing at the suggestion that (as this category claims)
FW de Klerk was "opposed to apartheid" before his 1989 volte-face. And since apartheid ended, it's near-impossible to find anyone who admits to having supported it over its 4 decades. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete topic is completely open-ended.
Perspicacite
03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- delete per Carlos and BrownHaired.
JoshuaZ
03:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Only activists deserve a category. Just having an opinion shouldn't count. How can we know someone's opinion anyway, without reading their mind?
Steve Dufour
04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. About as useful a category as
Category:People who breathe oxygen. Best, --
Shirahadasha
07:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, using
Category:Anti-apartheid activists instead. On a similar note,
Category:Supporters of apartheid is also too broad and POV. Most current members of that category should be moved to
Category:Apartheid government which is a NPOV definition.
Zaian
11:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. Almost all people support the government they happen to live under. That's just human nature, for better or worse.
Steve Dufour
12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Church of Ireland archbishops
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Church of Ireland archbishops (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. Empty apart from an inappropriately-placed sub-category, and a functional duplicate of
Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland. The creator appears not have been aware that the
Church of Ireland is an
Anglican church.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - only one of the duplicates is needed, but unless this one is strictly incorrect nomenclature, it is at least less verbose.
Blockinblox
13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply There are only two Anglican archbishoprics in Ireland, each of has its own category:
Category:Anglican Archbishops of Dublin,
Category:Anglican bishops and archbishops of Armagh.
Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland and
Category:Church of Ireland archbishops are both only container categories, and neither needs to be used for articles. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queen's University
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was rename or delete per nomination.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
08:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:South African prelates to
Category:South African bishops
Category:Austrian prelates to
Category:Austrian bishops
Category:Peruvian prelates to
Category:Peruvian bishops
Category:Puerto Rican prelates to
Category:Puerto Rican bishops
- Propose deleting
Category:Armenian prelates,
Category:Bolivian prelates,
Category:English prelates,
Category:American prelates,
Category:Argentine prelates,
Category:Belgian prelates,
Category:Canadian prelates,
Category:Norwegian prelates,
Category:Spanish prelates and
Category:Swiss prelates.
- Nominator's Rationale: The articles and sub-categories of these categories are all
bishops, and there is no need to use the less familiar term "prelate". (Prelate does appear to have a broader meaning of "religious leader", but we already have
Category:Religious leaders and its subcats for that purpose).
Where an appropriate bishops category already exists (such as
Category:English bishops) for
Category:English prelates, I have proposed deleting the prelates category, and in the other cases they should be renamed to the more familiar term "bishop", which is how the office-holders concerned are usually known.
Note that I have not nominated some prelates by nationality categories such as
Category:German_prelates, which appears to consist mostly of abbots. I don't now whether it is worth keeping those prelates categories, and while I reckon they would probably be better named as "Fooian religious leaders", that is best left to a separate discussion
I note that there is also a post in the
Roman Catholic Church called
Territorial Prelate, but so far as I can see there are no articles on any holders of that post, which in any case ranks below that of a bishop and is unlikely to be notable of itself. To avoid confusion, if a "prelate" category is needed for such people, they would be better in a
Category:Territorial prelates ... although I would question whether it is appropriate to create a category for every obscure rank in the complex hierarchies of large religions. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Argentine prelates include both sub-categories Bishops and Cardinals. --
Mariano(
t/
c)
16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply All the Argentine Cardinals on whom there were articles are (or were) also bishops or archbishops. There is no no useful purpose served by maintaining a separate layer of categorisation by country merely to group together two near-identical categories of senior Roman Catholic clergy. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename and delete per nom. I am confident that BHG had considered these carefully - I looked at the 3 persons in the first one, and prelate is not mentioned in any of the 3 articles. I also looked at the English ones and they are just the archbishops and bishops. This adds nothing but confusion to the categorisation of clerics.
-- roundhouse
19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Particularly as none of the subcategories of English prelates is entirely correct - Archbishops in England can be Welsh or Ugandan. English bishops is a correct subcat but it contains all the Catholic Archbishops in England (not necessarily English) and also
Patrick O'Donoghue who looks more likely to be Irish.
-- roundhouse
01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - Although "prelate" may be a technically correct title for these people, these categories will confuse people looking up information on bishops. The rename seems appropriate.
Dr. Submillimeter
08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Adrenocortial cancer deaths
Category:Category:Indian comic book publishers
Category:People who have at some stage claimed they are not gay
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. I know that this exact name hasn't been on CFD before, but I still believe that this is recreated content.
After Midnight
0001
14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:People who have at some stage claimed they are not gay (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Obvious really.
WP:BLP issues, unencylcopedic etc. No doubt we could have "people who have a some stage claimed they don't beat their wife" too.
WjB
scribe
14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was rename
Category:Fertilizer Producers to
Category:Fertilizer companies.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fertilizer Producers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer companies, since animals also produce
fertilizer. --
Prove It
(talk)
13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I think
Category:Fertilizer manufacturing companies would be clearer. Otherwise it could include companies that sell the product.
Vegaswikian
21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer manufacturing companies.
Haddiscoe
22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer Companies. Most of the listed companies also sell the product. I created the category, and think Fertilizer Companies fits better (didn't like the "producer" name so much either)
Shocklord
00:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer manufacturers. Sorry to introduce yet another permutation, but manufacturers removes the ambiguity about animals which make fertiliser, and the manufacturers are not necessarily companies: some may be state entities in socialist countries, others may be farmers co-ops or other such entities. --00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer manufacturers. unambigious.--
ZayZayEM
03:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Fertilizer Companies. I don't think "manufacturing" is the correct term to describe the production of chemicals. And Animals cannot be "Companies" so it is unambiguous.
Shocklord
04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:WikiProject Color articles needing infobox sources
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was keep.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:WikiProject Color articles needing infobox sources (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete per
WP:ASR.--
Encu555
13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep : The template that includes this category is similar in purpose to the unsourced and fact templates. The use of the category is to be able to track down unsourced Color infoboxes and fix or remove them. The intent is that as pages are fixed the occurrence of this category would naturally disappear. Bias disclaimer: I was the one that created this category)
PaleAqua
18:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Places in Brunei
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was upmerge (and since this category is empty, that means delete).
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Places in Brunei to
Category:Geography of Brunei
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Marvel Comics heroes, non-superpowered
Category:DC Comics heroes, non-superpowered
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn.
Vegaswikian
22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional ninja (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This is yet the first one, and hopefully the last category that isn't plural. So move it to Fictonal ninjas.
TheBlazikenMaster
00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.