Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 10 | October 12 > |
|---|
October 11
[edit]Ships by country
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the items in the "Undecided by country" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). It needs to be resolved with some urgency as there are several duplicate categories at present. Most of the categories are in the form "nationality ships". I think this is preferable because ships are often anthropomorphized. The likes of "Ships of Poland" sounds ugly to me, and is certainly not normal usage. So rename/merge all to "X ships". If this proposal gets a vote or two I will go through and tag all the categories. CalJW 20:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge everything in Category:Ships by country and Category:Ships by nationality per nom (and hope nobody can find a ship of the Holy Roman Empire suitable for an article). Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Remame/merge per CalJW and Kirill. SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Ships by country, and transfer all entries there from Category:Ships by nationality. "Country", rather than "nationality", is used in most other contexts to denote geopolitical boundary entities. (We don't say Cities by nationality or Books by nationality or Companies by nationality, e.g.). I have less problems with Ships of the United States than United States ships, which might easily be read to include all ships made in the USA, even if sold to some other country for actual usage. 12.73.195.105 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment x2
- Might there be some virtue in keeping categories grouped "by nationality" in the format Barish foo while those grouped "by country" as Foo of/in Bar? (I'm not saying don't merge in this case, I'm merely saying try to match the name format to the category title which is kept)
- Might we want to look into clarifying what defines the appropriate country/nation to file a ship under? For instance, are various ships flying under a flag of convenience Panamanian, Liberian etc.? Or do we care about the nationality of the crew? Or how about the homeport? Or do we care about the place of manufacture? All those question marks make me wonder if something like "Ships registered in Foo" or "Ships under the flag of Foo" might be the best way to go about things. The drawback is it might be less informative when it comes to commercial shipping in the modern era where we'll get the Foobarbata Maru and the MV Queen of Fooba both categorized as from the Netherlands Antilles.
- -The Tom 01:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per the Tom, most ships transporting cargo internationally are registered to a flag of convenience, e.g. Panama, Cyprus, etc., crews are gathered from around the world (particularly asia). Additionally, certain countries (i.e. the United States) have very restrictive laws on registering ships (must be manufactured in the US, always owned by American parties, crewed by Americans, etc.) whereas others clearly do not. In short, ships can't generally be said to have "nationality" in the modern age, nor are they strictly "of" a country. I would suggest "Ships registered in Foobaria" as preferable and potentially slightly less confusing than "Ships under the flag of Foobaria" ("under the flag of" might theoretically confuse some landlubbers or those whose English is less than perfect). siafu 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By far the majority of the articles in these categories, however, are military ships, for which the question of registration is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps a split into "Ships registered in Foo" and "Naval vessels of Foo" might be worthwhile. Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is a good idea. siafu 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We already have Category:Naval ships which categorises in the form "Fooian naval ships".
- Note also that many ships did not sail under the United Kingdom flag, for instance the Golden Hind, although it remains correct to categorise them as British. Hiding talk 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, that's a historical loophole that's bound to dog any country-based rather than nationality-based categorization, and I imagine we could grin and bear this one... put the Hind and its contemporaries in an "under the flag of England" cat, which could be either promoted to root or be subcatted in a technically-innacurate way under the "under the flag of the United Kingdom". -The Tom 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a proposal to basically eliminate any top-level breakdown of ships by country/nationality, then? Separate civilian and naval cats from the root, and then no more cross-referencing on the country level? Just making sure we're all on the same page -The Tom 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, as I don't see any problems with having "Naval ships by country" and "Civilian ships by country" both under "Categories by country". Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but are you proposing having or not having a "Ships by country > Ships of Elbonia > Civilian ships of Elbonia" supercategorization? -The Tom 14:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, as I don't see any problems with having "Naval ships by country" and "Civilian ships by country" both under "Categories by country". Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that is a good idea. siafu 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't realise this area was so complicated. I'm going to leave it for shipping enthusiasts to sort out at some future time. CalJW 23:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good idea! Nice and simple. There will be a lot for Liberia! Wallie 07:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as appropriate to Category:Ships by country and set that as standard in usual fashion, with the form "Ships of X". Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This category should have "Nobel" added to the beginning of its title, since "Prize" is rather nondescript. Suggest renaming to Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners. --tomf688{talk} 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename CalJW 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Surely there are other prizes in economics. BD2412 talk 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not a Nobel price, so calling it Nobel Prize in Economics is wrong. Shanes 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. It could be renamed the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, as the article suggests, but leaving it simply as "Prize" is unacceptable. --tomf688{talk} 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics or Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics, make Nobel Prize in Economics a categoryredirect. — Instantnood 05:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename makes it simple Youngamerican 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's not a Nobel Prize. Category:Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics winners would be better. NatusRoma 22:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a Nobel Prize because that is what it is normally called. The category system is a navigation tool, and your proposed name will make it much harder to find. The technicalities can be discussed in the article. CalJW 23:37, 16 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Add "South" as per the nomination below and "television" for clarity because that is what this category is for. So rename category:South Korean television drama. CalJW 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the process of reorganising the Korea, South Korea, and North Korea menus so that articles can easily be reached from any of them and categories contain what they say they contain. Many aspects of culture are best dealt with at all-Korea level, but in television a distinction is valuable as it largely or entirely post-dates division and the contrast between the television of the two Korean states is stark. And all the articles appear to be about South Korean series, so rename category:South Korean television series. CalJW 19:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for consistency with its child cat (kitten?) above. siafu 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Deferred pending Naming conventions. «»Who?¿?meta 06:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Since Mexican journalists are "American" too. – Quadell (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. --Kbdank71 19:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mexican journalists are "Mexican" in English. That is normal English usage. If it is different in Spanish, that is a matter for the Spanish Wikipedia. Over 80% of U.S. people categories are correctly termed "American" and that should be increased to 100%. Wikipedia should not be used to try to change the English language for political reasons. CalJW 19:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - In theory "United States journalists" could also apply to Mexicans as the country is the United Mexican States. In the real world "Americans" means Americans not Mexicans. I thought there was a discussion on this whole issue? JW 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - The statement above " 'Americans' means Americans not Mexicans" proves the need - this is a nationalistic POV-driven use of the word "American" to be synonymous only with (?white/Euro-ancestered) citizens, culture, science, inventions, institutions, et al. of the United States of America, one of several American nations past & current. 12.73.195.105 00:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not nationalistic or POV, its based on more or less universal usage. JW 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I highly doubt Canadians or Mexicans would like to be called "Americans." You clearly have a POV here, which seems to be to label people "American" who don't call themselves American. As well, when something is a common standard -- e.g. correct English usage -- it's not the same as saying "everybody else does it." It seems this is your own private, uncommon standard that you want to foist on others. And why are you arguing so vociferously for this point from an anonymous account? Smacks of sockpuppet action, IMHO. If you don't value your own opinions enough to sign in and use your account, how do you expect other people to value them? David Hoag 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Everybody else does it" is not a sufficient justification for adopting poor English as a language standard! 12.73.194.194 12:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't poor English, it is standard English. It is the alternative that is poor English. And isn't nationalistic either. Piccadilly 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Everybody else does it" is not a sufficient justification for adopting poor English as a language standard! 12.73.194.194 12:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for Wikiclarity. BD2412 talk 00:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Do whatever is consistent with established Wikipolicy for US-related categories. Rename if "United States" is the accepted norm; don't rename if "American" is. Consistency of US-related category names with each other is the paramount concern here. And I speak as a non-US resident, so this vote is most certainly not coming from an Americentric POV. Bearcat 00:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What to call categories of things related to the United States in a "nationality x" format is not decided; there is no existing "Wikipolicy". Considerable discussion on this has already occurred, perhaps most recently in the archived discussions related to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer this and all similar until full-fledged debate can be held, preferably in some dedicated TalkPage. As a Canadian, I personally dislike it when it's implied Canadians have some sort of claim on the term on the term "America" and we've gotta share it with those-who-carry-passports-with-the-word-"United States of America". No. It's theirs. Seriously. They can have it. We don't want it. Off with them :). -The Tom 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Current title is common & correct English. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Current name is normal English. Piccadilly 13:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I prefer it as it is too. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This debate has been held many, many times. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename POV, clarity, and it just sounds better Youngamerican 05:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is point of view to want to change it, it is no clearer (those who vote for change no what it means as well as those who want to keep it as it is) and it sounds worse. CalJW 10:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Silly political correctness; Canadians and Mexicans certainly won't like it; non-standard usage; foisting private opinions with the silly rationale that it's nationalistic otherwise. It's as foolish as "Freedom Fries." David Hoag 15:45, 19 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has just been through one vote and was closed as "no consensus". But a vote which leaves an illiterate and non-standard name in place when not a single person supported it merely exposes the weaknesses of Wikipedia's collaborative processes, and does not endorse the status quo. So please let's not have any quibbles this time, just a change to a coherent name. The proposed form is the predominant one for such categories. If you have would prefer a different name, how about letting it at least get put into this form first to avoid Wikipedia looking illiterate, and then proposing another form in a third vote? This process is very poor for dealing with multiple options as there are often too few votes after the extra option is thrown into the mix for a concensus between three options to become apparent. CalJW 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "so avoid Wikipedia looking illiterate"? I'm speechless. Rename. --Kbdank71 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a what is known as a "typo". CalJW 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Democracy at it's finest. Rename. --tomf688{talk} 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment EVERY comment and vote counts on Wikipedia, including yours. To state that Wikipedia is flawed because you did not approve of a decision based off of a community supported consensus system, is contrary to your participation in it. Also, in the future, if you object to a speedy renaming, please copy the suggested proposal to normal CFD and not a modified one that fits your preference. Although this one matches the standard of the parent category the original proposal should not be ignored. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The system is flawed because the result was something that no-one supported, just because not enough effort went into achieving a resolution at the right time. Everyone was against the retention of the singular form. I renominated it because there was a consensus to pluralise which did not get implemented, and that consensus is being confirmed this time round.
- I do not believe it is a controversial point that this process fails to achieve its objective of arriving at a quality decision sometimes. Participation levels are feeble, the discussion is not real time, things get in a muddle when there are two issues, and the level of participation falls from low to almost zero in the second half of the seven day period. It is not a good system, but it is what we have. All I am doing here is tackling a small example of its failings.
- I made this proposal in response to seeing the closed page before I saw the other vote, so please check the date stamps in future. CalJW 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the grounds for a rename are based on grammar or spelling, it doesn't require a vote. You can just list it in the speedy section, or even just apply the change yourself if you're so inclined. I don't think it's really all that helpful to rant about CfD's failure to apply a change that anybody can make at any time without needing CfD consensus to do it. But since the debate's already here, and fairly straightforward, I'll vote in favour of the rename anyway. Bearcat 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed Piccadilly 13:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I was original nominator of this rename --TimPope 21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Actors appearing on Neighbours, which is rather more coherent than the proposed rename. siafu 23:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is factually incorrect as applied to most of the actors in question. It would have to be Category:Actors who are currently appearing on Neighbours or have done so in the past. The length of that suggests why "X actors" is the prevalent form. CalJW 23:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that an actor is "appearing on Q" does not imply that it is only in the present; such a statement would make it absolutely meaningless, as it would only be valid during the hours the show was actually airing, which is clearly not what is meant. siafu 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly imprecise and confusing. It could easily be a subcategory of "Neighbours actors" alongside "Former Neighbours actors". CalJW 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that an actor is "appearing on Q" does not imply that it is only in the present; such a statement would make it absolutely meaningless, as it would only be valid during the hours the show was actually airing, which is clearly not what is meant. siafu 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is factually incorrect as applied to most of the actors in question. It would have to be Category:Actors who are currently appearing on Neighbours or have done so in the past. The length of that suggests why "X actors" is the prevalent form. CalJW 23:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. Carina22 09:43, 13 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to standard form. CalJW 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. --Kbdank71 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (could be speedy per #4). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). «»Who?¿?meta 06:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these companies are international. Rename to standard form Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom. CalJW 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that confusing, in an unintentionally funny way? These companies aren't selling the country, after all. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge all articles to Category:Wholesalers. There is only one company that is in wholesalers that isn't in the UK, but according to the article, they operate there. So this subcat isn't necessary. --Kbdank71 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is necessary. These are British companies and belong in a British category. Your ideas on the development of the category system are out of date. It is now clearly established that we categorise by subject area and country. METRO AG is a 60 billion dollar German company with about 2% of its turnover in the UK. There are many multi-billion turnover wholesalers. I will mark the category "popcat". CalJW 19:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ideas like that which cause many unnecessary, yes unnecessary categories to be created. Not everything needs to be categorized by subject and country. Especially with only seven articles. Of course, I'm not up on recent developments in established categorizing, so if you would point me to a policy that states that, I'll change my vote. --Kbdank71 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would anyone waste their time writing a policy stating the obvious, at the risk of a needless wrangle with the likes of you and radiant!, when this principle has been applied tens of thousands of times in practice without being challenged? I prefer to get on with the practical business of categorisation. Your ideas about the level of categorisation required have been superseded by events. As the number of articles and categories increases this will become more and more obvious. CalJW 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is of course assuming that the number of articles is going to increase, which it may well not do. For now, Kbdank71's proposal seems perfectly reasonable to me. There's no reason to be dogmatic when it just creates extra and unnecessary levels of recursion. When the number of articles does increase (perhaps you'd care to write some?), then we can seperate it by region. siafu 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the number of articles in Wikipedia as a whole, which increases every minute, but it is most improbable that this particular category will not increase. I am not being "dogmatic" and I am making thousands of edits to improve the category system. I believe that only by doing so can one learn how essential thorough classification is to bring together closely related articles which can otherwise be categorised in different category systems, or not at all. And the category system is tremendously valuable to Wikipedia; when the category links were removed from the main page on an experimental basis, hits fell by more than a third. CalJW 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neither suggesting that the category system is not valuable (Huh?), nor that your efforts at improving it are not appreciated. I am merely stating that all else being equal, the category structure should have as few levels as necessary, and in this case there doesn't seem to be much representation from multiple regions, therefore dividing by region is currently superfluous. siafu 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should have categories which will clearly be needed in the long run as soon as possible as it will make the articles easier to find and reduce the amount of categorisation time in the long run because articles will only have to be categorised once rather than two or three times. CalJW 19:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Operating on this principle seems particularly foolish in cases like these. If the category isn't needed, then why would we have it? We're just increasing the server load to have categories for articles that we are merely theorizing may exist in the future. Unless someone is going to step forward now and state clearly that they intend to create articles for retailers in other regions in the immediate future, this is something that should be left in as finished and parsimonious a state as possible until the situation demands a change. siafu 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw this personal attack. Also please pay attention to earlier comments. Wholesalers aren't retailers.' We wouldn't have much of a category system at all if your principles applied. Every national category was created for one country first. CalJW 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that wholesalers are retailers; how is this relevant? And no, national categories only become meaningful when "X of Foobaria" can be contrasted to "X of Elbonia", otherwise it's pointless. siafu 12:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw this personal attack. Also please pay attention to earlier comments. Wholesalers aren't retailers.' We wouldn't have much of a category system at all if your principles applied. Every national category was created for one country first. CalJW 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Operating on this principle seems particularly foolish in cases like these. If the category isn't needed, then why would we have it? We're just increasing the server load to have categories for articles that we are merely theorizing may exist in the future. Unless someone is going to step forward now and state clearly that they intend to create articles for retailers in other regions in the immediate future, this is something that should be left in as finished and parsimonious a state as possible until the situation demands a change. siafu 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should have categories which will clearly be needed in the long run as soon as possible as it will make the articles easier to find and reduce the amount of categorisation time in the long run because articles will only have to be categorised once rather than two or three times. CalJW 19:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neither suggesting that the category system is not valuable (Huh?), nor that your efforts at improving it are not appreciated. I am merely stating that all else being equal, the category structure should have as few levels as necessary, and in this case there doesn't seem to be much representation from multiple regions, therefore dividing by region is currently superfluous. siafu 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the number of articles in Wikipedia as a whole, which increases every minute, but it is most improbable that this particular category will not increase. I am not being "dogmatic" and I am making thousands of edits to improve the category system. I believe that only by doing so can one learn how essential thorough classification is to bring together closely related articles which can otherwise be categorised in different category systems, or not at all. And the category system is tremendously valuable to Wikipedia; when the category links were removed from the main page on an experimental basis, hits fell by more than a third. CalJW 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is of course assuming that the number of articles is going to increase, which it may well not do. For now, Kbdank71's proposal seems perfectly reasonable to me. There's no reason to be dogmatic when it just creates extra and unnecessary levels of recursion. When the number of articles does increase (perhaps you'd care to write some?), then we can seperate it by region. siafu 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would anyone waste their time writing a policy stating the obvious, at the risk of a needless wrangle with the likes of you and radiant!, when this principle has been applied tens of thousands of times in practice without being challenged? I prefer to get on with the practical business of categorisation. Your ideas about the level of categorisation required have been superseded by events. As the number of articles and categories increases this will become more and more obvious. CalJW 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's also perfectly possible to accomplish the stated goal by using the existing categories Category:Wholesalers and Category:Retailers of the United Kingdom. While CalJW is right that established policy favours some kind of categorization under both subject area and country, it doesn't necessarily require new "this particular subject area by country" subcategories in every single case. There are a lot of cases where it's actually more appropriate to separately apply two categories, one for "subject" and one for "nation", than it is to create a single "this particular subject area in this particular country" category. No vote, because I don't know whether this is such a case or not. Bearcat 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholesalers aren't retailers. CalJW 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ideas like that which cause many unnecessary, yes unnecessary categories to be created. Not everything needs to be categorized by subject and country. Especially with only seven articles. Of course, I'm not up on recent developments in established categorizing, so if you would point me to a policy that states that, I'll change my vote. --Kbdank71 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is necessary. These are British companies and belong in a British category. Your ideas on the development of the category system are out of date. It is now clearly established that we categorise by subject area and country. METRO AG is a 60 billion dollar German company with about 2% of its turnover in the UK. There are many multi-billion turnover wholesalers. I will mark the category "popcat". CalJW 19:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nominated. Companies are primarily categorised by where they are based rather than by where they operate, because if we did it the other way, many would need to be in a hundred or more categories. There will be more articles in this category. The FTSE 100 companies don't all have articles yet, and little more than a quarter of the FTSE 250 articles are started. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated above. siafu 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you must create complitcations of this sort, could you at least indicate that the proposed amendment should be implemented if the category is not deleted? This may now end in "no consensus". What a frustrating waste of time. Also please withdraw the personal attack above. CalJW 10:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that, since I must "create complication", I would point out that I am trying to avoid a waste of resources rather than perpetuate one for no purpose. But, by all means, if I'm outvoted I prefer "of" to "in". siafu 12:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you must create complitcations of this sort, could you at least indicate that the proposed amendment should be implemented if the category is not deleted? This may now end in "no consensus". What a frustrating waste of time. Also please withdraw the personal attack above. CalJW 10:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If no one actually votes against the proposed name, and the category is not deleted, which looks unlikely, could the closer please rename it with "of"? This system does not cope well when more than one issue arises, but if no-one has voted for the status quo, implying that it is the worst of all the options considered, it seems inappropriate to preserve it. It certainly makes one wonder whether making proposals for simple cosmetic changes is worth the effort - and there are reams of categories which need simple cosmetic changes which no-one has got round to proposing yet. CalJW 10:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note. There has been no further discussion in 5 days of closing. There was no consensus to rename, so the request to rename at the bottom is against the consensus, reguardless of policy. Policy states that there still has to be consensus if there is an objection to the proposed naming, in this case, the other contention is to delete, not to rename in another format or keep. «»Who?¿?meta 06:16, 20 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cinema chains
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename all. «»Who?¿?meta 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are all named in American English, which is a breach of the policy that British and American English have equal status in Wikipedia. Cinemas are never called "movie theatres" in the UK and some other countries.
- Category:Movie theatre chains in the United Kingdom --> Category:Cinema chains in the United Kingdom
- Category:Movie theatre chains in Hong Kong --> Category:Cinema chains in Hong Kong
- Category:Movie theatre chains in Australia --> Category:Cinema chains in Australia
- Category:Movie theatre chains in the Republic of Ireland --> Category:Cinema chains in the Republic of Ireland
Rename all CalJW 16:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Bearcat 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all, including in USA; 'Cinema' is generic Wikipedian for "movie theater" (and "movie" is slang in addition, so it would have to become Film theater chains where not Cinema chains, anyway). 12.73.195.85 02:16, 16 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blog is today the overwhelmingly more common term, and our own article is at blog. - SimonP 15:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename CalJW 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with the rename, but I'd also suggest that "Weblogs" should be kept as a soft or hard redirect. While "Blogs" fits with the "most common name" policy, the unabbreviated "weblogs" is still a term with enough currency that I can still see some users expecting that to be the normative term. Bearcat 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?meta 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Football in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in line with the policy of avoiding abbreviations and the standard format for this country. CalJW 12:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as always. - Darwinek 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. -- Reinyday, 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:11, 12 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should preferably be deleted. But if we must have it, it should be Category:Homosexual British politicians or something similar. Not all of these people are MPs, they're MSPs, MEPs, European Commissioners, etc. JW 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Piccadilly 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, different types of politicians are included, though that's the fault of the articles included, not the category. So why "should" the category itself be deleted? Care to state any reasons?
Unless reasons are stated, my vote has to be Keep.Cleduc 16:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Cleduc 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My own feeling is that it makes no sense to categorise by sexual orientation when we don't do it by gender. But as I know a significant number of users support these kind of categories it should at least have the proper name, as "UK" and "MPs" are both abbreviations. We could change it to "British Members of Parliament" or whatever, but that would be long-winded and would exclude MSPs et al. JW 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still like to hear the rationale for nomination, as grounds have not been sufficiently explained. However, I will point out that this category does not fit within the current category structure for LGBT politicians (which does not break down by nation). Cleduc 20:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had explained, but OK. There are two schools of thought on this, 1) Don't classify people by race/gender/sexuality/religion at all, 2) Its legitimate to classify people in this way, and its of interest to others. I am more sympathetic to not classifying in these ways at all. If we don't classify by gender, then we shouldn't do it by sexuality either. But as we are unlikely to get agreement to delete these kind of categories we should rename this one so that it is more accurate and doesn't use abbreviations. JW 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories serve as an index to find articles of interest, or related articles. These categories have been discussed in CfD before, removed, and subsequently restored. Oh, and by the way, we do classify politicians by gender sometimes. Cleduc 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had explained, but OK. There are two schools of thought on this, 1) Don't classify people by race/gender/sexuality/religion at all, 2) Its legitimate to classify people in this way, and its of interest to others. I am more sympathetic to not classifying in these ways at all. If we don't classify by gender, then we shouldn't do it by sexuality either. But as we are unlikely to get agreement to delete these kind of categories we should rename this one so that it is more accurate and doesn't use abbreviations. JW 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All categories of this type are primarily intended to promote the idea that homosexuality is widespread and that there are many talented and influential homosexuals. They are irredeemably pov under any name and prone to abuse as the activists cram in everyone they can on the basis of the slightest scrap of evidence. They are part of a propaganda drive that has nothing to do with producing an encyclopedia. CalJW 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia is based on facts. Facts are not POV -- and when they are not facts, they should be challenged (for example, in specific cases). The fact of the matter is, today there are many gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-etc people that are in politics, and their identity as such is notable (especially in politics), and an established fact. Assuming agendas is a tricky thing: one could make the converse statement that there is a "widespread conspiracy of homophobes that deliberately erase the identity, nay, the existence of non-straight people," but that would be inappropriate. So, don't assume agendas -- it is offensive, and misleading. It turns out that subcategorization by profession is driven by a desire to make Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people smaller and more useful. Cleduc 20:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume agendas where I believe them to be blatant. The choice of which facts to highlight most certainly provides opportunities for bias. These categories display a mixture of cynicism and naivety. The cynicism I have already referred to. The naivety arises when an intellectual fashion is so prevalent and so rarely challenged, that its proponents are unaware that they are promoting a particular point of view, and that their bias is obvious to outsiders. The way that gay rights activists expect be able to manipulate Wikipedia without being challenged is very offensive. CalJW 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even fractionally as offensive as the notion that "Wikipedia should have no gay-related categories at all" is somehow a neutral point of view. Bearcat 02:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so I'm naive, and don't even understand my own motivations? Fair enough. My inappropriate comment above is appropriate after all. I sincerely regret the benefit of the doubt. Cleduc 13:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume agendas where I believe them to be blatant. The choice of which facts to highlight most certainly provides opportunities for bias. These categories display a mixture of cynicism and naivety. The cynicism I have already referred to. The naivety arises when an intellectual fashion is so prevalent and so rarely challenged, that its proponents are unaware that they are promoting a particular point of view, and that their bias is obvious to outsiders. The way that gay rights activists expect be able to manipulate Wikipedia without being challenged is very offensive. CalJW 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia is based on facts. Facts are not POV -- and when they are not facts, they should be challenged (for example, in specific cases). The fact of the matter is, today there are many gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-etc people that are in politics, and their identity as such is notable (especially in politics), and an established fact. Assuming agendas is a tricky thing: one could make the converse statement that there is a "widespread conspiracy of homophobes that deliberately erase the identity, nay, the existence of non-straight people," but that would be inappropriate. So, don't assume agendas -- it is offensive, and misleading. It turns out that subcategorization by profession is driven by a desire to make Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people smaller and more useful. Cleduc 20:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In this particular instance I'd favour a rename. Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom is the most appropriate title, since they aren't all MPs, they aren't all gay men and "homosexual" is never an appropriate word under which to categorize individual people. But the point remains that "gay-related categories should be deleted" is not, and never can be, a neutral POV. The category serves to list people who have openly identified themselves as being members of the LGBT community, and because they have openly self-identified as such, the category is by definition a relevant and objective fact about them. The idea that a person might be included for dubious reasons is a red herring -- in the highly unlikely event that such actually happens, the answer is to remove the person or discuss the matter on their talk page; it does not render the entire category invalid. Rename but keep. Bearcat 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom (per Bearcat, and in keeping with Category:LGBT politicians from Canada) or rename the former to Category:British LGBT politicians and the latter to Category:Canadian LGBT politicians. -The Tom 01:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm also someone who finds these categories somewhat fluid, if you'll excuse any pun. I'm not convinced I'd place Michael Portillo here, and I also find there to be an implication in the lacking of a Category:Undeclared or non-LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom, for want of a better name. I think that if we split by gender we should split equally, mirroring any female categories with male ones, otherwise there may be uncomfortable implications, and that applies somewhat equally to sexuality. However, I'm also aware that such categories will never be deleted due to the fluid nature of wikipedia. Also note Horace Walpole has never been a politician of the United Kingdom. Hiding talk 18:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no evidence about a specific person then s/he should be removed from the category, as that would be a problem with the article. There's no need for an "undeclared sexuality" category anymore than there's a need for a "non-politician" category. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem with Michael Portillo is that he has admitted to homosoexual encounters whilst a youth, but to my knowledge hasn't admitted to being bisexual, now being happily married. I guess the way I view that sort of thing is similar to smoking. I haven't smoked a cigarette for five years, so does that make me a smoker or a non-smoker? Would we have a category for smokers? If not, I wonder if we should categorise for sexuality. I'm inclined to vote
delete, and certainly oppose any rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom, as people are categorised by nationality as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions(categories). If it is to remain, my preference is for rename to Category:British LGBT politicians. I think I also oppose this LGBT subcategories on the grounds that it seems at odds with the category structure. It doesn't seem an important sub category within the profession category. I can certainly see the appeal in categorising LGBT people, and sub-categorising by nationality, but to sub-categorise by profession seems to lead to a flaw. I believe I'm correct in saying that if Category:Homosexual British politicians is a sub cat of Category:British politicians then articles contained in the former do not appear in the latter. That seems somewhat counter productive to my eye. It appears odd that Michael Portillo's namenot be prominately displayed in Category:British politicians but in a sub-category, when other people are not somehow equally sub-categorised. Why should we not also sub-categorise confirmed hetero-sexual people? If it seems inappropriate to do that, then I believe it is inappropriate to do the other. I believe there should be an even handed approach, otherwise there is a risk of POV pushing, if only by implication. Hiding talk 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Most British politicians already aren't filed directly in Category:British politicians; they're filed in subcategories such as Category:British MPs or Category:British politicians by party. So there's no conflict here; even if this were deleted, Michael Portillo still wouldn't be filed directly in Category:British politicians. Bearcat 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem with Michael Portillo is that he has admitted to homosoexual encounters whilst a youth, but to my knowledge hasn't admitted to being bisexual, now being happily married. I guess the way I view that sort of thing is similar to smoking. I haven't smoked a cigarette for five years, so does that make me a smoker or a non-smoker? Would we have a category for smokers? If not, I wonder if we should categorise for sexuality. I'm inclined to vote
- If there is no evidence about a specific person then s/he should be removed from the category, as that would be a problem with the article. There's no need for an "undeclared sexuality" category anymore than there's a need for a "non-politician" category. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Hiding's excellent reasoning above, especially the point about articles not appearing in both parent and subcats leading to peculiarity in this case. -Splashtalk 02:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It leads to no peculiarity whatsoever. See my comment just above. Bearcat 18:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per bearcat Youngamerican 05:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but to LGBT not "homosexual" as we are not the Victorians --TimPope 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Renaming to Category:British LGBT politicians (and if rename is the final decision, I believe this would be the correct new name) appears superficially attractive - I have no qualms about categorising people by sexuality - but the issue raised by Hiding remains valid. Despite Bearcat's reasonable comments that most British politicians are in subcats of Category:British politicians there remain 88 who are in the parent cat (because for example they are members of small parties or defunct parties that don't merit a subcat within the British politicians by party hierarchy, of for some other valid reason). Such an issue occurs whenever you attempt to shoehorn two separate hierarchies in one category. An LGBT politician from the UK should therefore be in two categories: - Category:British politicians (or an appropriate subcat of that) and Category:LGBT politicians. Valiantis 18:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the issue he raised; the issue he raised was specifically Michael Portillo. And of those 88 who are still filed in Category:British politicians, I just now did a completely random sampling of nine of those articles, and found that five of the nine could be reassigned to more specific subcategories that already exist. In fact, some were already redundantly filed in both British politicians and a subcategory. If that percentage holds, the category will be down to 40 politicians in a flash, and that's not even counting the probability that some of those last 40 will be assignable to valid subcategories that just haven't been created yet. Bearcat 19:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the issue I raised, Portillo was merely an example, the nearest name to hand. I agree that an LGBT politician from the UK should therefore be in two categories: - Category:British politicians (or an appropriate subcat of that) and Category:LGBT politicians, if such a category is neccessary. Hiding talk 09:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that you raised an issue that doesn't actually create the problem you claimed that it creates as a reason not to have this category. Which more or less makes it an invalid argument. Bearcat 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So it would be fine to be listed in Category:British LGBT politicians and in Category:British MPs? And then if someone creates Category:LGBT British MPs this would not be as a subcategory of Category:British MPs? Hiding talk 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to your first question, yes; neither is a subcategory of the other, so it doesn't even come close to raising the issue you claimed. There's no rule against filing an article in multiple subcategories of the same parent; there would only be an issue with further filing the article in the parent itself. In answer to the second, I hardly think that would even be a necessary subcategory; the number of people filed here at present simply doesn't warrant further breakdown. Bearcat 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've amended my vote above. I have to say I still don't like the fluidic nature of the category, but if the goal is to avoid sub-catting which would cause confusion, I can live with that. Hiding talk 20:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So it would be fine to be listed in Category:British LGBT politicians and in Category:British MPs? And then if someone creates Category:LGBT British MPs this would not be as a subcategory of Category:British MPs? Hiding talk 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that you raised an issue that doesn't actually create the problem you claimed that it creates as a reason not to have this category. Which more or less makes it an invalid argument. Bearcat 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the issue I raised, Portillo was merely an example, the nearest name to hand. I agree that an LGBT politician from the UK should therefore be in two categories: - Category:British politicians (or an appropriate subcat of that) and Category:LGBT politicians, if such a category is neccessary. Hiding talk 09:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the issue he raised; the issue he raised was specifically Michael Portillo. And of those 88 who are still filed in Category:British politicians, I just now did a completely random sampling of nine of those articles, and found that five of the nine could be reassigned to more specific subcategories that already exist. In fact, some were already redundantly filed in both British politicians and a subcategory. If that percentage holds, the category will be down to 40 politicians in a flash, and that's not even counting the probability that some of those last 40 will be assignable to valid subcategories that just haven't been created yet. Bearcat 19:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom or similar. Snrdon 08:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's kept, people are categorised by nationality so Category:British LGBT politicians would be correct. Valiantis 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:British gay politicians. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Hiding's reasoning above. Siebren 10:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename per Bearcat. Jonathunder 07:11, 24 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
United States X Amendment case law
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename all. «»Who?¿?meta 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is yet another mass nomination, but it's really an all-or-nothing question. The United States is not the only country to have Amendments (or even Amendment-related case law) - see Second Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, Twenty-seventh Amendment, and most of those in between. I propose that all "X Amendment case law" categories be changed to "United States X Amendment case law". BD2412 talk 03:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Category:First Amendment case law --> Category:United States First Amendment case law
- Category:Second Amendment case law --> Category:United States Second Amendment case law
- Category:Third Amendment case law --> Category:United States Third Amendment case law
- Category:Fourth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law
- Category:Fifth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fifth Amendment case law
- Category:Sixth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Sixth Amendment case law
- Category:Seventh Amendment case law --> Category:United States Seventh Amendment case law
- Category:Eighth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Eighth Amendment case law
- Category:Ninth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Ninth Amendment case law
- Category:Tenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Tenth Amendment case law
- Category:Eleventh Amendment case law --> Category:United States Eleventh Amendment case law
- Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Thirteenth Amendment case law
- Category:Fourteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law
- Category:Fifteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fifteenth Amendment case law
- Category:Seventeenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Seventeenth Amendment case law
- Category:Nineteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Nineteenth Amendment case law
- Rename all CalJW 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all -- it's bad form to be so United States-centric. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. Bearcat 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. These are category names, which go on the article they are relevant to. They are subcats of Category:United States constitutional case law, so there is no ambiguity about which country they belong to. This is not being United States-centric. This is preventing unnecessarily long cat names. -- Reinyday, 14:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- And what, then, shall we do with a case like Attorney General v. X - a case relating to the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland? Put it in our Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law, with an asterisk? BD2412 talk 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. Unless subcats somehow create their own sub-namespace to avoid collisions, BD2412 has a valid point in the preceeding comment. Putting an Irish case under Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law would otherwise cause it to appear in a U.S. subcat, which is more wrong than having unweildy cat names. --Kgf0 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all The idea that they don't need clear names because they are in a U.S. category is mistaken. One could put category:Companies in the United States category on the same basis. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename per Naming conventions. See closing note. «»Who?¿?meta 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went and created Category:Ottawa elementary schools for those few schools that qualify to be in there. I think the categories should be more descriptive. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Category:High schools in Ottawa be a subcat of Category:Ottawa schools? I'm sure will be getting other types of schools. Or is it OK if they are all a subcat of Category:Education in Ottawa. Vegaswikian 03:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine for them to all be under Category:Education in Ottawa. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We should have three categories called category:Schools in Ottawa, category:High schools in Ottawa and Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. That is the only way to fit things into the category system properly. CalJW 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I still personally hate the idea of school articles on principle. But if they have to be there, then yes, I'd favour separate categories for elementary schools and high schools. Rename. Bearcat 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support change, though keeping a parent category:Schools in Ottawa would do no harm. - SimonP 19:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support CalJW's 3 categories. Vegaswikian 23:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I went and created the proposed category, with Category:Ottawa schools as the higher category for it, and Category:Ottawa elementary schools. Above Category:Ottawa schools is Category:Education in Ottawa followed by the Ottawa category itself. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So as I understand it the changes now required are quite different from the original proposal, but seem to have support, ie rename Category:Ottawa schools as Category:Schools in Ottawa and rename Category:Ottawa elementary schools as category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. Carina22 09:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I think they are fine as-is. If anything, Category:High schools in Ottawa should be renamed to Category:Ottawa high schools. I'd be happy to do that right now. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So as I understand it the changes now required are quite different from the original proposal, but seem to have support, ie rename Category:Ottawa schools as Category:Schools in Ottawa and rename Category:Ottawa elementary schools as category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. Carina22 09:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is good to be bold, but only if the community is going to accept the new categories. Please do not create more categories in the middle of the discussion or depopulate categories, as if consensus goes in another direction, we are stuck with newly created categories. Also, it may cause a closing of "no consensus" which this one is close to.∞Who?¿? 01:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename with parent category, per SimonP. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per CalJW. Currently the standard is "X in place" ∞Who?¿? 01:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The non-standard and duplicate category:Ottawa high schools should be merged and deleted as part of the closure process. I have tagged it. CalJW 10:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There's nothing that says they can't remain with their current names. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note Categories were created during the discussion, which the community had not properly reached a consensus. The following categories will be renamed per Naming Conventions (categories), as there is a consensus to rename for both sets:
- Category:Ottawa schools to Category:Schools in Ottawa
- Category:Ottawa high schools to Category:High schools in Ottawa
- Category:Ottawa elementary schools to Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: