Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland[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:Delete - list of Honorary fellows already present in main article. --Xdamrtalk 11:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete (perhaps listify first) as overcategorisation by award. Recipients of this honour include Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa, who each have many more defining characteristics. BencherliteTalk 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like an honorary degree, this is not a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Honorary degrees prove importance, and so do such awards--even if they have other defining characteristic also. A person can be in many categories. Everyone in this category is notable as such,and it is reasonable to collect them together. A list would also be a good idea--in addition, so we could see if we have any missing articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Functionally equivalent to an honorary degree, which categories have always been deleted as non-defining. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - defining of the RCS Ireland HeartofaDog (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is if it is defining for the those who receive the honour, not if it is defining for the group that gives out the honour. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were interested in in the RCS Ireland I would think it useful to know to whom they had awarded hon fellowships. Please don't tell me what questions to ask.HeartofaDog (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask whatever questions you like. Whether it's a useful question is another issue to which anyone else can have a valid opinion. (On the question in issue—if a user were interested in the RCS Ireland they would probably go to the article to find it. This is where this information should be contained, in my opinion. (I.e., not at the bottom of Nelson Mandela's or Mother Teresa's article, where a person interested in RCS Ireland would probably not be looking.)) Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely and completely non defying for those named like Jimmy Carter. This award is given to notable people and the award does not make them notable. Vegaswikian (talk)
Listify and then delete -- This is the usual solution to awards categories. It is not that the award is not a significant honour, but probably not really defining. I have not checked if the list already exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 21 October 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:Rename. Has -> have, gramatical error. +known as number of planet unknown. Suggest merging to something like Stars that have multiple planets Martin451 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the planetary systems left in the top level category are the ones with one known planet-- or they should be. To include all stars with any planets would be the whole Category:Planetary systems-- as far as I know.
Merge all of the mutli-planet sub-cats for sure. I would favor Category:Stars with multiple planets as the target. "Known" seems an unnecessary qualifier for an encyclopedia. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename stars that has n planets to stars that have n planets. I like it not to upmerge to stars with multiple planets. I like it to have categories about stars with individual number of planets rather than all stars with at least two planets. Because in the future, lot more stars will have two planets, three planets, four planets, five planets, and so on. That was my grammatical mistake at the time when I created new categories that I put has instead of have. Changing to stars with n planets would be OK to me. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, we can subdivide the categories as much as seems appropriate, but for now it seems unnecessary to have five categories when three of them only have one or two articles, and the largest two have 26 and 10 articles. A single category for all of them would not be overloaded at this time. --RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that sounds fine to me. Currently there are 40 stars including our Sun are known to have multiple planets. However in next several years, there may be hundreds of stars known to have multiple planets. So for now we could upmerge all of it into stars known to have multiple planets, and in several years, we can split it into stars known to have n planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reason why stars with more than one planet should be categorized separately from those that have only one? If not, delete all and merge into Category:Planetary systems. Ucucha 02:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. Even if it comes to a time when science can give definitive numbers of planets, these are not useful categories. Useless category which stars would be forever being moved from as new discoveries were made. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge to Category:Planetary systems. My first instinct was that those with more than one planet and those with more than one should be categorized together. The more I think about it, the more I agree that it doesn't make sense to separate out those with multiple known planets. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge to Category:Planetary systems. The extra ones (after the original '4 planets') were not tagged and there is now a separate tagged discussion for 8 - see here. Occuli (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge per Good Olfactory and Occuli.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after there all deleted and upmerged to category:Planetary systems, maybe we should discuss about renaming planetary systems to stars with planets. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a category for stars with planets. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Planetary systems, per Ucucha, Occuli. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think consensus is now clearly converging towards not categorizing these systems in any way according to the number of planets (one, two, three, four, ..., or multiple). Currently, Category:Planetary systems contains all systems of stars and planets, but some of the commenters above here are essentially proposing to rename this category to Category:Stars with planets. In theory, there is, of course, a distinction between a "planetary system" and a "star with planets", the distinction between the Solar System and the Sun, but in practice we're probably not going to separate those for extrasolar systems. In that case, Category:Planetary systems is at least consistent with the main article, planetary system. But I think the best course of action might be to use this CfD only to delete all the "Stars that has n planets" categories and then relist it to explicitly discuss renaming Category:Planetary systems to Category:Stars with planets. Ucucha 03:08, 23 October 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:Uperge, unnecessary subdivision, with only three categories and one article at present, which the natural history cat is more than capable of handling. The biota grouping may make sense at higher level geographic divisions where there is going to be a lot more natural history content to sort through, but not at this level. It's the only U.S.-state level biota category. Postdlf (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per last argument of the nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as an unnecessary subcategory. The target recommended by the nominator can easily handle one additional article and a few additional sub-categories. --RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 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:Withdrawn by nominator, see my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:TFD has been renamed to Templates for discussion, so the category should be moved to correspond to the new title. As the new title has already been created, the contents of this category should be merged there. Jafeluv (talk) 14:12, 14 October 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. --Xdamrtalk 11:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category has absolutely nothing to do with physiology. Only one of the pages within the category is remotely related to physiology. I am opting for deletion rather than recategorising everything because all of the hair pages with any physiology info is already under Category:Hair anatomy. Skittleys (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, who is correct. I don't think we will ever need such a cateogry. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 14 October 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 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. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – as above. Occuli (talk) 10:45, 14 October 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.
Rename as per conventional usage on WP Mayumashu (talk) 23:17, 14 October 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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match other categories in parent. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator and recent multiple precedent of categories of the same type. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these supposed to be people of descent from or origin from the country of Turkey or are they about the Turkic peoples? 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename per Alansohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 20 October 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:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Sweden. (There has been recent consensus to not delete the category: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: unlike real people who always have are least some allegiance to their nations/territories/etc. and who always have a place of birth (even if it's unknown) - fictional characters need not have it at all. A fictional character may be identified in the text as Swede but this brief note does not say anything about his birth place ("where he comes from") or his citizenship (a very recent invention) etc; sometimes on a purpose. Like the Wandering Jew. So if the decision is made to replace ethnicity with place of birth or any other strictly geographic criteria, you should just as well take courage to remove a lot of categorization where these criteria aren't sourced to original texts.
Even more general comments: Unlike real people, fictional characters cannot sue the Foundation, so why should we suppress their ethnicities the way we try to suppress those of real people? If the author wrote A Swede, it's a Swede. NVO (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet the author rarely writes "a Swede". Most likely they write a story that takes place in Sweden, and WP editors use original research to determine that the characters are Swedish. That's one of the inherent problem with these categories even existing, but that's another debate. Anyway, it's not an "ethnicity" vs. "nationality" issue—these are all self-evidently nationality ones (they are subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by nationality, after all), and these proposals merely brings some degree of naming standardization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually authors do, and sometimes this just adds to confusion: Sven Hjerson. NVO (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know they do, but I said it is probably done more rarely than the other method of "assigning" nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If the defining criteria is nationality (understood as citizenship?), is there a consensus what to do with people/characters who lived before establishment of modern nation-states? NVO (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long ago are we talking? Do you mean before the establishment of any modern nation-states, or do you mean before the establishment of a particular modern nation-state? If you mean the latter, the general practice is usually to put them into the modern nation-state nationality category, unless there is an "defunct" one that applies and is for whatever reason more relevant: e.g., Category:Czechoslovak people, Category:Ottoman people. If you mean the former, I don't think we would attempt to push it back indefinitely; the cave-man character is not going to be placed in Category:Kenyan people just because he lived in the Rift Valley. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per recent precedent of multiple categories of the same structure. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What worries me that, just like with the case of "recent precedents", a change in the intended meaning of the category will not be followed by revision of all categorized pages and contents of the category will follow the old convention, since few editors will have the guts to strip former ethnic categories from highly-watched characters. NVO (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no change in the intended meaning of the category. It is only changing the name of the category. A bot will move the articles, we don't need to rely on users to do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Spain. (There has been recent consensus to not delete the category: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Poland. (There has been recent consensus to not delete the category: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Finland. (There has been recent consensus to not delete the category: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Denmark. (There has been recent consensus to not delete the category: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To reflect naming format recently accepted for real-people categories for people from Scotland. There was consensus for this identical change in 2007. In 2008, the renamed category was deleted. In 2009, it was re-created under the old name again. (Note: On the deletion issue, there has been recent consensus to not delete: see here.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:45, 14 October 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:Keep. --Xdamrtalk 11:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per main article, unnecessary dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep "The Real World" is too ambiguous. Could be mistaken for "the real world". I for one had never heard about "The Real World", but the addition "MTV" made it clear to me right away what this was. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response If so, I suggest that you request the article to be moved as well. Irrespective of that, I contend that the article and category should have the same name. If the article gets moved to The Real World (MTV), I will support keeping the category name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose highly ambiguous names for categories are a bad idea, unless you're volunteering to patrol this category, forever. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 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.
