The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all, allowing for renomination to delete the inappropriate fooian categories. Kbdank71 14:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a shame the official name isn't the (usually heard) "Aussie Rules" - it would have saved us a lot of trouble! Grutness...wha? 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary complication that creates an awkward, unfamiliar name to fix an alleged ambiguity that I personally can't see as much of a problem. 99% of notable AFL players are Australian; the sport is not played at a professional level anywhere else in the world. Why should avoiding every tiny piece of potential ambiguity (Is there any evidence that anyone is actually confused?) outweigh clarity and simplicity in category names? -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment didn't explain how we can justify having Category:Australian rules footballers acting simultaneously as a meta-category holding all of the subcategories, including Category:Australian rules footballers by nationality, AND simultaneously be a subcategory of Category:Australian rules footballers by nationality that holds footballers specifically of Australian nationality. Your logic would suggest that we should delete all of the "by-nationality" categories, which is one possible solution, but probably not the best one. Nor does it explain why we need both Category:Australian rules football player lists AND Category:Lists of Australian rules footballers, and why they shouldn't be combined into one category. But to answer your specific question posed, yes, when I found the category tree structure in this state with one category simultanously acting as a meta-parent and also a by-nationality subcategory that creates a self-referential looping link within the category tree, I was confused. In other words, if you think this is an "unnecessary complication", then you probably weren't familiar with the structure of this category tree prior to today! That's the purpose of the nomination, to complete the clean up of the mess it was in when I found it. I'm also at a bit of a loss in understanding how anyone can think that Category:Papua New Guinean Australian rules footballers (5 serial adjectives!) is superior to Category:Papua New Guinean players of Australian rules football in "clarity and simplicity", not to mention the awful Category:Indigenous Australian rules footballers ("indigenous what"?—we need a noun there) ... oh so many problems ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Instead of moving those categories, I think most should be deleted. The categories are populated by players who have a parent or grandparent from overseas. For example look at Category:Spanish Australian rules footballers, populated only by Paul Licuria, who has a mother from Spain. Does that make Licura Spanish? Certainly not. Also what is the point of a category if there is only going to be one name in it? Due to the multicultural nature of our country of course there will be plenty of players to have a parent born overseas but very very very few could actually be classed as 'foreign'. In my opinion, the only category worth keeping is Irish Australian rules footballers because of the league's history of recruiting players from Ireland. The rest are just pretty pointless categories to be honest. Jevansen (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all (the Canadian football example seems spot on) while agreeing with Jevansen above about the need to categorise by nationality, not descent. (There is Category:Australians of Spanish descent etc for that.) Occuli (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I partially agree with Jevansen's comments about the inappropriateness of some of the categories. The ones that are clearly populated only by "people of descent" should be deleted, but from looking over them there are probably more that can be saved than just the Australian and the Irish one. Perhaps if this rename goes through, it would be appropriate to follow it up with nominations for deletion for the inappropriate subcategories. I'd be willing to do that. I'm not sure if it would be wise for me at this point to change the nomination and single some out for deletion, but it certainly should be done at some point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My brain is starting to hurt trying to get my head around this so I'll apologise in advance if my following comments come from me having the wrong end of the stick. I'm basically querying whether or not Category:Australian rules footballers is actually ambiguous at all. Category:Canadian football players is ambiguous because it could either be for Canadians who play football or players of Canadian football. Category:Australian rules footballers however can, in my opinion, only mean one thing, that is players of Australian rules football. There is no sport called 'rules' or 'rules football' so in this instance the 'Australian' can't be referring to nationality. Jevansen (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct. The problem was that the category was being used as the category for all players of the sport AND as a nationality category for the Australians. Category:Australian rules footballers could be retained as the category for all players, but if that approach were taken we would need to largely empty it of its contents, most of which would go into a nationality category for the Australian players. I created Category:Players of Australian rules football to serve this purpose of being a "general" category for players, and populated it appropriately, simply because it was easier to do it this way and then convert the other category into the nationality category. I think it would be fine to do what you might want to suggest, that is: turn Category:Australian rules footballers into the category for Australians (because it would be easier to do it this way) and then take the new Category:Players of Australian rules football and rename it Category:Australian rules footballers. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split decisions: footballers is more common than football players - that's an Americanism... so leave it alone. Don't ruin the whole setup because someone made a mistake by overcategorising them by nationality. Remove the 'by nationality' cats and bingo, it all works.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. At present, this is the only by country subcategory for Category:Communications satellites. Since this category is getting large, it does need subcategories. Personally grouping by satellite name is for me a better way to group these since it makes them easier to find by name. I'm pretty sure that most readers don't know the name of the country that launched a particular satellite. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add other sub-cats by country - but also keep all of these satellites listed in the main cat (or convert that listing to an alphabetical list-article). This type of satellite in particular is inherently connected to the country which owns & controls it, since they are launched & used to facilitate that country's telecommunications -- so it makes excellent sense to organize the sub-cats on that basis. Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want to start categorizing all of these by country? I can see doing this at say Category:Satellites but I'm not convinced that we would need to carry that down to every other subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may (perhaps) have a point there. Category:Reconnaissance satellites does have sub-cats by country, which certainly makes very good sense. But I am seriously surprised to find that we don't already have Category:Satellites by country or Category:Artificial satellites by country. I do think think there's a good case for dividing ComSats by country, but I'm willing to hold off on that for a while and reevaluate after one of those higher-level categories is in place. Cgingold (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent needs subdivision and this is a logical level to break. Grouping by name or class might be appropriate if there are a very large number for one country, but not here. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the subcategories recently created are not sufficient? In any case, this it still the only by country category. I will note that some of the other operator companies are multinational. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 13:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Most satellite categories are specific about them being artificial. The category is actually for the satellites in geosynchronous orbit and the category name should make this clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename [amended, see below] to Category:Artificial satellites in geostationary orbit. The prefix "geo" already refers to Earth, so there's no real need to further specify that. Btw, I just added this as a parent cat to Category:Communications satellites, and I noticed that there is a huge overlap in contents. Is there any reason to maintain dual listings? Are some of them dual- or multi-purpose satellites? Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Communications satellites are not necessarily geostationary ... Occuli (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that, didn't mean to imply that they are -- but certainly the vast majority are, if I'm not mistaken. Do you think in a case like this readers will assume that every single member of the sub-cat also fully qualifies as a member of the parent? (We don't normally require 100% "membership" for the contents of sub-cats.) Cgingold (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I think most, if not all, of the satellite telephone birds are not in geostationary orbit. I had removed the geo category before I read this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've run AWB on the 2 cats which reveals 70 articles in common, 13 Geostationary but not communications (Arthur C Clark being one - ridiculous to think of him as a communications satellite, of course) and 140 CC but not Geo. Of course many of these will just be incompletely categorised. Perhaps a satellite person will opine. Occuli (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran CatScan and turned up 73 in both cats. I've also checked 15-20 at random in ComSats, and found a couple that had not yet been placed in the Geo cat, but only one that actually was not geostationary. Quite a few of the 200+ articles in ComSats are not about individual satellites -- so some sort of sub-cat/s is/are needed to separate out those articles from the ones that are about specific satellites. Cgingold (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to split out geostationary orbit and polar orbit for communications satellites. I think this covers most of these, the only exception I know of is some satellite radio birds, but I suspect there are others. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Telstar which claims to be elliptical. The plan sounds good. Occuli (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also updated several satellites on your work page so the top section is pretty well cleaned up, they were mostly just missing a category. The people were well categorized and I dropped this one. A lot of the articles are for systems or fleets. I think those should be in a subcategory since they are not articles about individual satellites. Not sure of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Another "fictional Xs" category (two actually) that doesn't offer context nor a verifiable reason why they should be in the category. Indeed, there are several that are debatable, for example, the Final Five in Battlestar Galactica, who are rebel protagonists (by this argument, the French resistance in WW2, which it [verifiably] paralleled, should be categorised as terrorists), to caricatures of heads of state which I can't remember committing terrorist acts (Saddam in South Park), and, in the "organisations" category, majority governments which do not canonically commit terrorist acts (Norsefire, and the film doesn't count). Recommend deletion. Sceptre(talk) 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - the nom makes a plausible case, and Category:Terrorists itself is hard enough to justify (impossible, I would say). Occuli (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional terrorists are only terrorists because their creators tell us so (which may be more definitive than the real ones, but alas, we'll just have to ask Him). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. I can provide the article names if someone wants to create a list. Kbdank71 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The category is small and unlikely to grow. The only potential growth would be if many articles for all the flashcard programs and websites were added to the encyclopedia. The category encourages promotional entries. Carlh (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a high quality flashcard software between the over 250 bad ones is not easy and this list is a very good help. At least shifted it to a wikipage about Flashcard software before deleting the category. This page could also contain general information about them, their advantage of paper flashcards, features to expect. The part Software in the article "spaced repetition" is a candidate to be moved there. 80.187.101.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It would only become a resource to find flash-card software if many other "me-too" articles were added to Wikipedia. So far that has been avoided. This category encourages people to add to it by creating new promotional articles. Carlh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Spaceflights to remove the "current" specification. Otto is correct that we should not be adding articles about specific flights to a category that contains articles about spaceflight in general. As for keeping it as a hidden category, what is the purpose? Hidden categories are for maintenance only, not for classifying the article subject. If it is hidden and you can't use it to find like articles, it might as well be deleted. Kbdank71 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I'm proposing this as a merge, but in truth, I believe that this one should be deleted. I'll see where consensus forms. In addition to the issues with using the word current, it also fails WP:POV since the criteria for inclusion is flights that are currently being covered in the media. Not sure how the list of spacewalks fits in, and that may be gone by the time you check. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we have plenty of other categories for current events. --GW… 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; we have few current categories and for good reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Spaceflights - I agree with the idea of eliminating the current/former distinction but not with the idea of scattering articles about individual flights in amongst the general articles on spaceflight, which would be a barrier to navigation for those interested in the flights but not necessarily the mechanics or general history. Irrelevant to this nomination, I think breaking down spaceflights by decade of launch would be a good addition to the project. Otto4711 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question of do we even need to do a merge. If they are already listed in the template, do we also need the category? If not, then a delete is a reasonable alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of categories are populated by template, why have any of those categories then? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such an issue is decided case-by-case; there's no generally applicable rule. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I hope someone brings up all the stub categories and the Category:Current events category tree for deletion, because they are all populated by template. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a source right now, but including encyclopedic categories in a template is not recommended. The reason is that it causes mis categorization since the templates tend to wind up in articles that don't belong in the templates categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor can I (find a source for that), but what you say sounds good to me, in the sense that it makes sense. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, if only articles with the template should appear in the category, and those without it should not appear in the category, then it would be just like the stub categories. (which still doesn't answer the question, why should those exist then?) But we have Category:Current events which is also populated by template, which this template populated category is a subcategory of. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, or preferably rename to Category:Spaceflights per Otto if possible. The main thing is we should get rid of the current/former distinction which is explicit here. It's quite simple to make the template not apply the category, so I think that's an irrelevant concern. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my previous comment, this should have been made a hidden category when that system was introduced. I would ask that this be relisted for another week in order to gauge support for retaining it as a hidden category. --GW… 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added {{hiddencat}} to prevent it from appearing on articles. The fact that this is a project category not a content category means that it is exempt from the issues with the word "current" and the POV issues. It is a pity that I did not realise that this was the case sooner. --GW… 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GW, and also echo the suggestion that this should be a hidden category. -MBK004 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - the category is being used, and is being found useful. Neither the nominator nor any other editor seems able to provide a compelling reason to change anything at all about it. (sdsds - talk) 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Oh! Did the original nominator intend to propose merging this category into Category:Spacecraft? That would be an entirely different question! (sdsds - talk) 23:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. People agree that the holocaust was not in spain, so what remains is whether to rename or delete. Peterkingiron states he will support deletion if the problem with categorizing the subcat can be solved. I take that to mean to keep the subcat properly categorized as holocaust-related, which it already is via its other parent, Category:Righteous Among the Nations. Kbdank71 13:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the convention of similar country subcategories, and also to broaden the category's scope to include non-biographical articles. –Black Falcon(Talk) 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was about to sign off on this to make it consistent with the other sub-cats, but after checking out the very limited contents, I'm not entirely certain what to do -- or whether this category should even be kept at all. To begin with, I was a little doubtful about the Holocaust having extended into Spain. It turns out that the sole article, about the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, has a fairly short passage in its section on inmates about a group of Spanish Republican prisoners (not necessarily any Jews or Roma among them) which was transferred to Mauthausen during WW2. That's all. No hint of anything involving the Holocaust per se in Spain. The lone sub-cat is for Spanish Righteous Among the Nations -- again, Spaniards -- who in this case really did have connection with the Holocaust, but not in Spain as far as I can see. In short, there's nothing that would support the rename proposal, which would be rather misleading. And I really don't think the category is warranted for the two items it holds -- especially since those inmates weren't strictly speaking part of the Holocaust, and there are no other categories that I'm aware of for concentration camp inmates by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would basically agree with the direction that Cgingold took in his comment: I can't see that this category is really necessary or justified. Nothing much would be lost without it. But if kept, judging by the contents I definitely don't think it should be renamed to a "in Spain" category. If kept I would think "Spanish people" would be more appropriately used than "Spaniards", since we use that form generally as in Category:Spanish people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron, not as per nom. There was no Holocaust in Spain, & the events that lead these articles to be categorized here occurred in Germany, France, Hungary etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments above. As I said, the Spanish Civil War POW's are not properly considered part of The Holocaust, and the lone sub-cat already has 2 other parent cats, so there's no need that I can see for this category. Cgingold (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron; there was no Holocaust "in Spain" - Spain made some efforts to rescue Jews from Nazi Germany and its allies, which is covered in part at Spain in World War II. We also don't have an article The Holocaust in Spain - not sure one could be written about anything factual - so a category would be a stretch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Cgingold's post below, I am ambivalent about whether this category remains; we don't need a parent just to have a parent cat, and don't have a similar categories for other peoples and the Holocaust. So deletion is probably the better choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guys, I just don't get why there's any support for keeping/renaming this category. I already explained above why the article about the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp doesn't belong here, but that doesn't seem to have done the job, so let me say it more plainly: those Spanish Civil War POW's had nothing to do with The Holocaust. The only reason I haven't already removed it from the category is purely because we are in the middle of a CFD. Without that article, there is exactly zero reason to even consider having this category, since Spanish Righteous Among the Nations can stand perfectly well by itself without adding an extra container cat. Cgingold (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Category:Spaniards and the Holocaust. Certainly there was no holocaust in Spain, and that is not what the category is about. There is not much in it, but mostly it is about what Spaniards did to obstruct the holocaust. Deletion raises problems because of the difficulty of parentling the subcategory, but if that issue could be solved, I would not oppose deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PKI, could you enlighten me as to where you see a problem arising with regard to parenting? The sub-cat will still be part of the Holocaust category structure by virtue of its parent, Category:Righteous Among the Nations. Is there some other concern that I'm not seeing? Cgingold (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. Kbdank71 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although "productions" is technically correct, "works" is a simpler term, and more consistent with Category:Creative works and its subcategories. Renaming would also remove any possible ambiguity between "production" as in creative work, and "production" as in production process (that is, the material covered by Machinima#Production), but that's a secondary consideration, IMO. I'm open to other possible better names, but I'd like to point out that one alternative, Category:Machinima films, would be not completely correct because there are a handful of television programs and episodes in here as well (e.g., Time Commanders, "Make Love, Not Warcraft"). — TKD::{talk} 10:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Yes, there is consensus to rename, but not to what (again, sorry). The best we have is two people wanting a rename to Category:Groups challenging the official accounts of the September 11 attacks. I'm not sure any many of the people who have contributed would complain if it were renamed as such, simply to avoid a re-nomination, but I'd rather have more people stating it. Kbdank71 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Calling it "official" is NPOV, and not even necessarily used within the movement. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 08:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "mainstream", as Jones also says he has a complete account, but I'd accept that, if necessary. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably allright for an article, which can then elaborate on what is meant by "mainstream" -- but it's not really suitable for a category name, imo. Cgingold (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. It looks like we're going to get the result rename somewhere again. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you wedded to "challenging" when all other fringe theory groups are termed "denial"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, really. I "challenge" the closing admin to find any result other than rename somewhere, as the no two people have proposed the same target name. I like this version, but we have deny/challenge, account/accounts, and "official"/mainstream, so far. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 14:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deny that "challenge" necessarily denotes anything of the sort -- it simply means that the accuracy, veracity or completeness of the official accounts are being challenged (either as a whole or in part). Put another way, they "take issue with" the official accounts -- so "challenge" is basically shorthand for that phrase, which would probably sound a little funny in a category name. "Challenge" is a good, neutral term, and it's also broader than (but inclusive of) "deny", therefore more useful as a category. Moreover, labeling all challengers as "deniers" would be improperly POV. Cgingold (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amazing what you can stumble across looking back through the archives. Way back in July 2007 we deleted Category:Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 on the grounds that it constitutes overcategorization on the basis of opinion or belief. Presumably these organizations are made up of individuals who challenge one or another official accounts of 9/11. This is also overcategorization on the basis of opinion or belief. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, this is one of the sillier comments I've seen recently. A group is more than the sum of its parts. These are activist groups that have been formed for the express purpose of "challenging the official accounts" of 9/11. Cgingold (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. I understand the "church of ireland" being confusing, but there is already a hatnote describing it's use, plus it brings this into conformity with Category:Church of Ireland, which doesn't seem to be a problem. Kbdank71 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Couple of reasons. They are part of a particular church within the Anglican Communion, the CoI. It is conceivable that other Anglican churches or splinter groups could have their own sees on the island of Ireland. The new name would also reduce ambiguity between the island of Ireland (what is meant here) and the Republic of Ireland. Category:Religious sees in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Religious sees in Northern Ireland could also be created, on the model of Category:Religious sees in Canada --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Church of Ireland" is also ambiguous to readers unfamiliar with the subject, because a) the "Church of Ireland" is a minority denomination in a primarily Roman catholic island, leading people to assume mistakenly that the CoI is an RC church; b) the word Ireland is still there with all its ambiguities. So on balance I think that Category:Anglican dioceses in Ireland is the least confusing option. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in Ireland" usually means just the Republic here. The note with a link to the Church of Ireland reduces any potential ambiguity. Plus CoI dioceses etc are just not normally called "Anglican" in Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In categories, Republic of Ireland is used consistently for 26-county-only categories: see Category:Republic of Ireland and its many many sub-cats. A headnote reduces ambiguity for people who read it, but since category titles appear elsewhere without explanation, I;m not sure that it resolves the ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. The proper name of the Church is "The Church of Ireland". It is a member of the anglican communion, but many of its consitutnet churches do not use the name "Anglican" in theri official name. Another possibility with be Category:Dioceses of The Church of Ireland (note capitalisation of The), but that is a less satisfactory solution. It is indeed a minority denomination, but that is its name. If there is a problem over confusing the ignorant, it can easily be dealt with by providing a short headnote to the category, with a see also item for RC dioceses. I doubt there are splinter groups large enough to want a separate diocesan structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Conformity with all other WWI/WWII weapons categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; the other categories are named thus. — TKD::{talk} 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Conformity with all other WWI/WWII weapons categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; the other categories are named thus. — TKD::{talk} 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
