Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:42, 18 April 2006 editWilliam Allen Simpson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,485 edits →new debate: also nearly identical to closed portion← Previous edit Revision as of 02:02, 18 April 2006 edit undoTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 edits →new debate: ''nation, furthermore Willy wrote this term in brackets next to the term nationality - so I am not sure to which term he wanted to refer.''Next edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. &mdash;'']'' 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC) The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. &mdash;'']'' 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


==== <big>Subdivisions to appropriate divisions</big> ==== ==== Subdivisions to appropriate divisions ====


In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "]" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is ] or ]. In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "]" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is ] or ].
Line 327: Line 327:
***:--] 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC) ***:--] 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
****Looking more carfully would have revealed to Willy that the region article states the regions are not official. How can they be administrative then? ****Looking more carfully would have revealed to Willy that the region article states the regions are not official. How can they be administrative then?
****Willy once again makes a claim without evidence, I cannot see where I changed the definition of nationalities. Maybe Willy can provide more background .] ] 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) ****Willy once again makes a claim without evidence, I cannot see where I changed the definition of ''], furthermore Willy wrote this term in brackets next to the term ] - so I am not sure to which term he wanted to refer.'' Maybe Willy can provide more background .] ] 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC), changed words in italics ] ] 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' *'''Oppose'''
*#don't split into Administrative divisions and Political divisions *#don't split into Administrative divisions and Political divisions
Line 338: Line 338:
*'''Comment''' -- again, as I have elsewhere, I object to the abusive namecalling, and derogatory diminuative form of my name. Since Conradi has persisted, I will again initiate separate proceedings against him. Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe. It appears to be nearly identical to his last comment in the closed portion of the debate. *'''Comment''' -- again, as I have elsewhere, I object to the abusive namecalling, and derogatory diminuative form of my name. Since Conradi has persisted, I will again initiate separate proceedings against him. Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe. It appears to be nearly identical to his last comment in the closed portion of the debate.
*:--] 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC) *:--] 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**If you would have choosen a shorter user name I would maybe write it in full. You don't write my full name neither. You object to abusive name calling? What do you refer to? Have fun with your separate "proceedings". What will they be? Sending missiles to Berlin? You seem to be a little bit unrelaxed. What do you mean by diatribe as mentioned in the edit summary? I remember you classified my english at least two times as of minor quality. It seems you really speak a different english to mine. And your distance to facts seems to be bigger. Because you claim and claim and claim, but if asked for backgound obstain, obstain, obstain. ] ] 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


====] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]==== ====] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]====

Revision as of 02:02, 18 April 2006

< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

Category:United States federal organic, enabling, and admission legislation to Category:United States federal territory and statehood legislation

The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. —Markles 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions to appropriate divisions

In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division.

Relisting of entire kit and kaboodle on the advice of the closer at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4 and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --William Allen Simpson 18:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the current subcategories to be included in Category:Administrative divisions by country:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S

T

U

Z

By definition, some countries cannot be classed directly in administrative divisions, where the political divisions are sovereign states. These are the proposed subcategories of existing Category:Political divisions by country:
Old Debate

The old debate here is Closed, and left here for historical context, and to mitigate somewhat the need for people to repeat arguments that have already been made. Please resume a new, fresh debate below the closed off section. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Prefer Administrative divisions. In much more common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--Esprit15d 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Conditional support. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating Political Divisions of France doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. The Minister of War 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per User:The Minister of War, and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Prefer "Administrative divisions". "Political divisions by country" sounds like it is about political strife. Carina22 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Prefer support use of "Administrative divisions" to rename cat pages listed in the nominationMayumashu 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Subdivision is an ambiguous and confusing term. Prefer "Administrative divisions". In addition, in Canada, subdivision could also refer to different types of municipalities. Luigizanasi 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per Carina22 Valentinian 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support "administrative divisions", but only if the renaming of all affected categories and articles is going to be done properly and expeditiously.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Prefer "Administrative divisions" to "subdivisions" or "political divisions". Kestenbaum 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. strong oppose please postpone. should be taken with more care. It not only involves 103 subcategories but also their articles and their subcategories. Proposal should be directed to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Provisional oppose as per Loren et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment -- my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --William Allen Simpson 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one state with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -Loren 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • comment terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (Administrative division, Political division, Country subdivision, Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How about Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo. This should deal with the problem of what is an admin vs a a political division, so we do not need to make a judgment. Referring to a Canadian province and a US or Australian state as an Administrative division somehow seems wrong, while counties, municipalities, regions, etc, are clearly "administrative" and not political. "Subdivision" just sounds wrong". Luigizanasi 05:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I don't believe that Misplaced Pages should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Misplaced Pages is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is NOT true. It is not a complete relisting, especially William hided some annotated facts again. Furthermore he listed old votings and comments out of context, because originally there where three votings. Furthermore before this fast relisting we could discuss the matter as suggested "Minister of war" and Tobias Conradi (and...?) Minister of war started discussion at Category talk:Subdivisions by country ---- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Prefer administrative divisions to political divisions. Nevertheless it will exclude constituencies and ceremonial counties, for instance, which are also subdivisions. — Instantnood 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment don't split the subdivision cats into "Administrative divisions" and "Political divisions".

...is a problematic term for a cat name that deals with territories in one country:

new debate
Comment - To address the concerns over the reuse of the old debate/votes, I am closing off the above sections. These will be considered as historical reference only. Please begin the debate anew below. Notices will be sent out to all who participated in the original debate. Pro, Con, and Neutral. Please debate below the proposal as it is now on the table. The arguments above over whether the relisting is partial or full are now moot. This is a new debate, about the current proposal. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- as nominator -- asking that folks not alter the listing, but instead give clean, clear, and cogent descriptions here, instead. There are several remaining technical questions (the same as the previous listing on April 4) to be addressed by experts in the particular regions. --William Allen Simpson 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current Category:Subdivisions of Japan is better than Category:Administrative divisions of Japan as not all of the divisions listed there are administrative. Some are geographical, some are political, and some are administrative. Some of the geographical overlap multiple administrative and political divisions. Changing the current name would only confuse things unless a better name can be thought up. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • These are terms of art. Did you read the administrative division definition? (Please ignore the recent Conradi changes to influence the debate, they are often inaccurate.)
      • It is my understanding that Japan is a sovereign state.
      • There are no separate nationalities within Japan, so there are no political divisions. (Conradi keeps changing the definition from nation to country, so ignore that page for now, you'll need a textbook instead.)
      • According to the CIA World Factbook, the top level administrative division, 47 prefectures, are not sovereign states. So, these are not "political division" of Japan.
      • Looking carefully at the pages in the category, each of these articles appear to be administrative divisions. Even regions overlapping cities and towns are actually administrative.
      • Without a formal definition for geographic division or geographical division, it does not appear either of these apply to Japan.
      • Please remember to use terms of art, not arbitrary wikipedian phraseology.
        --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking more carfully would have revealed to Willy that the region article states the regions are not official. How can they be administrative then?
        • Willy once again makes a claim without evidence, I cannot see where I changed the definition of nation, furthermore Willy wrote this term in brackets next to the term nationality - so I am not sure to which term he wanted to refer. Maybe Willy can provide more background .Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC), changed words in italics Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    1. don't split into Administrative divisions and Political divisions
    2. Some country subdivisions are neither administrative nor political, see Instantnood and Nihonjoe.
    3. the term "division (subnational entity)" is used specific country subdivisions in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and historicly Pakistan. The rename would result in the Administrative divisions of India being a subcategory of Administrative divisions of India
    4. Administrative division can also apply to non-territorial divisioning (of government occupation areas, i.e. Defense, Interior)
    5. see talk:Country subdivision to find that Willy's claim that "subdivision" in geography refers allways to Housing subdivisions is not true. It seems this is an US / real estate centric point of view.
    6. The move is really is mass move. If renames are necessary, they should be taken with more care. It effects not only more than 100 categories, more than 100 articles pages, templates and in the end Wikiprojects that use the name. Minister of war started a discussion at: Category_talk:Subdivisions by country, furthermore there is a corresponding Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Country subdivisions which Willy knows. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- again, as I have elsewhere, I object to the abusive namecalling, and derogatory diminuative form of my name. Since Conradi has persisted, I will again initiate separate proceedings against him. Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe. It appears to be nearly identical to his last comment in the closed portion of the debate.
    --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If you would have choosen a shorter user name I would maybe write it in full. You don't write my full name neither. You object to abusive name calling? What do you refer to? Have fun with your separate "proceedings". What will they be? Sending missiles to Berlin? You seem to be a little bit unrelaxed. What do you mean by diatribe as mentioned in the edit summary? I remember you classified my english at least two times as of minor quality. It seems you really speak a different english to mine. And your distance to facts seems to be bigger. Because you claim and claim and claim, but if asked for backgound obstain, obstain, obstain. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Carnegie Mellon professors to Category:Carnegie Mellon University faculty;
Category:MIT professors to Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty;
Category:Harvard University professors to Category:Harvard University faculty;
Category:Columbia University professors to Category:Columbia University faculty;
Category:New York University professors to Category:New York University faculty

Rename. "faculty" is preferable to "professors" - most category:Faculties by university in the United States use it. initialism should be spelled-out as well, as per convention Mayumashu 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename "Professor" should not be used om category names as it is not in itself a cause of notability and it is not used in the same way in all countries. Bhoeble 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, but please consider using "academic staff" instead of "faculty" (Category:Harvard University academic staff etc), despite this being British rather than American English. "Faculty" generally has the meaning of a subdivision within a university. Only American English uses it as a collective noun for the teachers/researchers of a university. That would make it fine to use for referring to U.S. institutions, if it weren't for the fact that American universities also use "Faculty" with the traditional meaning (e.g. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences). It gets particularly confusing when the supercategory uses the plural "faculties". Tupsharru 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
a valid concern, i d also say - will nominate a name change to Category:Academics by university - "academic staff" doesn t has any advantage over "academics", does it?
No, that's fine. I was just thinking in terms of another collective noun, but "academics by university" is certainly better. Tupsharru 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

remaining Professors category pages

Rename all. In November Category:Professors was deleted (see the discussion here - it has since been resurrected but as a redirect category page) the nomination here is to complete the renaming and merging of professor category pages to sub-categories of Category:Academics. a professor is a job title and having one is not encyclopedic whereas being a prominent academic (within one's field) is. Mayumashu 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) here is the list for rename/merge:

  • Rename all per nominator (I assume "Professors by subject" and "Professors by nationality" will go to "Academics by subject" and "Academics by nationality"; might want to amend the nomination for completeness). --Trovatore 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
they won t need to since the entire content of both pages is included in this nominationMayumashu 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow. Are you saying those cats will be simply deleted? Surely the same arguments against the word "Professor" apply to them too. --Trovatore 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
the two cat pages do not hold any article pages because, due to how they are named, they list (only sub-)category pages of professors by subject and profs by country. Category:Professors page however listed article pages, the bios of profs, whose links have not been sorted (yet) by subject and or nationality. i don t think i can explain it clearly really (and i m an english linguist, sadly) but by visting the three cat pages you ll see how there s no problem involved. Mayumashu 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all but move critical theory professors to critical theorists (the nominator suggests moving the sole critical theorist to literary crtic, which I disagree with). Critical theory is an interdisciplinary subject, so everyone who ought to be in this category will also be in another academic category (compare Category:Game theorists). This is nonetheless a very big field which diserves a category on wikipedia. --best, kevin 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
will oblige Mayumashu 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. Tupsharru 23:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. I note in passing that the Category:Chemists is rather confusing with its sub-categories. I'll raise a discussion on the Chemistry WikiProject. --Bduke 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. David Kernow 09:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Academics" primarily refers to subjects in American English, not people, such that the abstract phrase "legal academics," for example, would most likely be read as the study of the law rather than those who study it. I'd support renaming to "academicians" instead because that word only refers to people, while "academic" is comparatively inobvious and ambiguous (as much if not more so than "professor" is in British English). Postdlf 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm an American, and I don't hear it that way. An academic is only a person. It is a little unfortunate that there's this other meaning in the plural, but I think that's liveable-with. An "academician" on the other hand is a member of a formal academy, such as the National Academy of Science. BTW the problem with "professor" is not really ambiguity; it's the fact that it's a job title as opposed to a job description. --Trovatore 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm also a native Am-English speaker, raised in an academic family, and my first interpretation of "legal academics" would be academic people who study law. I do see the ambiguity, however. Although I prefer the ambiguity over the term "academician". --best, kevin 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. Scranchuse 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Disaster preparation in Puerto Rico

Currently empty with little scope of growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Disaster preparation in Germany to Category:Disaster preparation by country

Small with little scope for growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Canadian disaster preparation to Category:Disaster preparation by country

Small with little scope for growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Space flight control room positions

I know it's unusual to propose deletion just after the previous CfD ended, however, there's one important thing that wasn't considered in the previous debate: the category consisted of a set of about a dozen related articles which I found while browsing around, but later all were redirected to Flight controller, which is the only article left on the category. With that, the category became pointless. Delete. cesarb 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per earlier nom. No point in keeping categories for single articles, even if they were previously myriad stubs. Alai 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional Hongkongers to Category:Fictional Hong Kongers

Moved from speedy after objection. --Syrthiss 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Both spellings are commonly used. The SCMP, the territory's English-language newspaper with the largest circulation, spells Hongkongers in one word. — Instantnood 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Famous locations in Fukui Prefecture to Category:Visitor attractions in Fukui Prefecture

"Visitor attractions" is a much more common category name. There is no category:Famous locations for this to slot into. Honbicot 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stone Roses albums to Category:The Stone Roses albums

The band's name is The Stone Roses, so a "The" needs to be added to the category (per e.g. Category:The Beatles albums). kingboyk 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:N.W.A to Category:N.W.A.

Duplicates. "N.W.A" is a mistake as it's an acronym so should be "N.W.A." kingboyk 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)