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: Long dash, alphabetical order, consistent use of nouns. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This same nomination is included in the longer list nomination for 2008 AUG 13. Nom, should this one be closed in light of that? Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (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: Two points: use of long dash per naming conventions, and my personal preference for alphabetical order for neutrality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense to me. Kuralyov (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use of en-dash is correct in this context; see WP:DASH. Normally I would support the alphabetical solution, but in this case the main article is at Georgian–Abkhazian conflictand Georgia is a state which is a member state of the United Nations and is widely recognized internationally, whereas Abkhazia is not a member of the UN and is recognized as soverign by no sovereign state or international organization, not even by Russia. Given that, I think it's entirely fair to place Georgia first when describing the conflict. By all means change the hyphen to an en dash, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just change the dash, per GO. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (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 13:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: links to this cat page are with pages on inductees into this hall Mayumashu (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2008 (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. The new name would be more inclusive. Plus, it is often difficult to predict exactly when technologies will become practical. EliyakT·C 14:38, 12 August 2008 (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:speedy rename per established naming convention. — CharlotteWebb 19:13, 12 August 2008 (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 13:05, 18 August 2008 (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:no consensus. Kbdank71 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated, only one article Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under-used, rather than under-usable, I think. It seems like a reasonable concept for a category, perhaps we can do something to encourage its use by posting to relevant wikiprojects? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I am going to be doing articles on several of the major countries from the All-World article for the Dark Tower wikiproject and a number of them would go in this category. Kuralyov (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Baronies in fictional states or similar. See existing Category:Fictional nobility & subs. I think fictional nobility in actual countries should be distinguished from fictional nobility in fictional states, & making this distinction in these new "baronies" rather than "barons" cats is a good place toi start. The same goes for the earldoms below. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can this (a description of geography) be merged with a categorization of the nobility? That seems confusing, to no obvious purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (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:upmerge and delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated, only one article Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the incorporation status of a fictional community is really all that significant. Upmerge the one entry back to the parent category and delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (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 13:02, 18 August 2008 (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. "Jovial" means "happy", clearly an inappropriate name. These are giant planets, and so the category should be so renamed. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "jovial planet(s)" elicits 600ghits, "jovian planet(s)" 70,000 ghits, and "giant planet(s)" gets 400,000 google hits. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, Rename to Category:Gas giant planets. I thought perhaps the term had been superseded by something else, but apparently not. Since this is a category name, we should include the word "planets" for complete clarity. Anything but "Jovial" -- it's hard to see how a planet that full of gas could be happy... Cgingold (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly -- I thought it was a nice bit of "found humor", to coin a phrase. Cgingold (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (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.
The result of the discussion was:delete as empty category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This article no longer contains any articles Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (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.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. Kbdank71 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to phrases used in the astronomical literature. The term "Sub-Earth" is generally not used by itself to denote a sub-Earth mass planet, and the term "Sub-Jupiter" is generally not used by itself to denote a sub-Jupiter mass planet. Spacepotato (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first three of these categories have been proposed for deletion already; see here, here, and here. As for Category:Sub-Jupiters, I have added this to the nomination. Spacepotato (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, though the problem is that alot of planets only have lower bounds on mass... if the estimated upper bound lies beyond the cut-off, would it belong? 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I believe that "sub-jupiter", "super-jupiter", "super-earth" and "sub-earth" are a false categorization scheme. The usual distinction is if a planet is a giant planet, a brown dwarf, or the small non-giant planets (such as terrestrial planets). We don't divide stars into more than Solar mass and less than Solar mass, even though Solar mass is a unit of mass used to measure stars. So even though Jupiter mass and Earth mass are used to describe the masses of planets, they are not a valid categorization scheme. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename prefer Deletion. Sub-Earth mass or Sub-Jupiter mass is an arbitrary choice that is not phsyically motivated (as opposed to say "Terrestrial planets" and "gas giants"). We could just as well create categories Sub-Saturian mass, Sub-Uranus mass, Greater-than-Mars mass, Farther-than-1 AU-planets, etc. Sub-Jupiter mass would already apply to all planets in our solar system save Jupiter. Just because something can be described as having property X doesn't mean that it makes a good category. Categories should be structured around properties that are useful organizing tools, and I don't see that being the case here. Dragons flight (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (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 12:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This contains subcategories for people from both cities and towns. As previously explained there is ambiguity about the use of the word "city" to describe New Zealand urban centres - government legislation changed the definition some 20 years ago, reducing some former cities to town status, but these towns still use the word city in their own by-laws and descriptions of themselves. At the time of the above-linked debate, Queenstown was the only questionable "non-city" with a subcategory of the currently-nominated category, but it's been joined by Waiuku and Oamaru, and also by Timaru, which may or may not be a city according to which side of the debate you support. As such, widening the official scope of this category will reduce any problems of definition. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for the reasons well set out there. (As a side note: Really, you'd think we'd figure some way out to stop using "city", "town", etc. in category names in order to avoid complications like this and non-conformance across categories for different countries. Isn't there some all-purpose word that would work across all cultures for cities, towns, villages, settlements, etc. in all countries? Or is this a pipe dream?) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As for your question, the only other word that comes to mind is municipalities, but that's really not what you're looking for. Category:Settlements, of course, is the all-purpose category that serves as the super-cat for all of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. I think the word you're searching for is 'locality', but I d prefer 'by city or town' to discourage having villages, unincorporated communities, and other lightly populated places having 'people from' cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposal allows it to be a subcat of Category:People by city and Category:People by town, which is useful. Though your suggestion is shorter and simpler, it would be a less likely subcategory of those parents. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 17 August 2008 (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.
