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 the nominated category and the politicians subcategory (tagged by Armbrust). -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think that in the case of an eponymous category for an organization, the article name and the category name should usually correspond. The article is at Reform Party of the United States of America. I'm not sure if that's where it should be, but for now we can make these match. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If this goes through I suppose we can speedy that one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 30 October 2010 (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, irreconcilable differences. — ξxplicit 03:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We have consistently deleted categories that organize people by marital status and there has been broad and usually unanimous consensus that we shouldn't categorize by marital status. Currently, we don't categorize people who are married; we don't categorize polygamists; we don't categorize people who are single; we don't categorize people who are widowed; we don't categorize people who have a "partner" but are unmarried; and we don't categorize adulterers. So why would be want to categorize divorced people? It is such a common status that it approaches triviality. People usually aren't notable because they have been divorced. (Note on previous discussion: in the past, we have deleted categories for Undifferentiated spouses; Polygamists; Spouses of polygamists; Adulterers; Marriages by year; People who married their cousins; Widows; and Unmarried people. I don't think we've seen one for divorced people before. We have had Fictional divorcees before.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A subject's martial status is irrelevant to their notability. Pinkadelica♣ 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. It isn't an aspect of notability, and it's too common to be a useful category. Will Bebacktalk 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categorization isn't always consistent with notability. But, divorces are frequently followed by suits. So divorces may be more serious than marriages. Divorces may be problems in thier careers like Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich.--Jun Nijo (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too many occurrences to be useful, and lumping people together because they've been divorced is not illuminating. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Divorces is important factors of biographies, so this categorizing is useful. If this category will be too large, we can divide it ─by nationality, for example.Paladin R.T. (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per logic above around non-defining commonality. I also note that, based on the double-e spelling, this category refers to women only and therefore many articles are mis-categorised here. The men should be in Category:Divorces. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you spelled it Category:Divorcés. Category:Divorces would be a category for articles about divorces between two people. My dictionary says "divorcee" (without accent) is "a divorced person" of either gender, with "divorcée" being used for women and "divorcé" for men if a gendered term is needed. So I think the category is appropriately named, at least. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful category. Neutron (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too overpopulated to be useful. --CliffC (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listing all divorcees in this category is impractical and impossible; selective listing should be discouraged as subjective. East of Borschov 06:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Boson (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Over cat, over list, not inline with previous agreements surrounding marriage, and as nominator says: such a common status that it approaches triviality. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Spalds (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, a guarded maybe, but "deer" is much more commonly used. Our article, the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary[1], Chambers[2] and the Free Dictionary[3] give the plural solely as "deer", while Collins[4] and Webster[5] give "deer" first as the plural, but say "also deers". Dictionary.com gives "deer" as the plural and then says "occasionally deers".[6] To my ear, "deers" sounds as ridiculous as "sheeps", hence my request to change it; I'm very surprised to find two dictionaries giving "deers" as an optional plural and one saying it is occasionally used. That said, given that three dictionaries give "deer" as the sole plural, and three others give "deer" as the first plural, then say "also deers", I still think that "deer" is much better. Ericoides (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per above analysis, I think "deer" is more common. I'm assuming deer vs deers is not an WP:ENGVAR UK/US issue. I'm just speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised if "deer" is the standard term for more than one deer but that "deers" is commonly used when referring to more than one species of the animal. That's kind of the normal usage you find with "fish" vs. "fishes". If that's the case, "deers" would be correct here. But absent some expert knowledge about this being presented, I think we can go with the generally more common one. The proposal matches Category:Deer, in any case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge into Category:Cervus. This category is about two species (Elk, Cervus canadensis; and Red Deer, Cervus elaphus) that are probably not even each other's closest relatives. We don't need it. Ucucha 04:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's another possibility. However, Category:Cervus wouldn't be very large (33 pages I think, and fewer since I just removed a bunch of non-Cervus deer from the category), and there is some continued taxonomic uncertainty over some Cervus species. Ucucha 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is yet another reasonable possibility; however, I would prefer to keep Category:Cervus because the definitions of the Elk and Red Deer in Asia are still somewhat ambiguous. Note that the contents of the categories have changed a little as I re-categorized a bunch. Ucucha 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete. The plural of "deer" is "deer", whether individuals or species: other usages may occur, but very rarely by first-language English speakers except perhaps as a deliberate naivism (for example, in Raymond Briggs's Father Christmas, where it's a running joke). In any case, if the plural of "elk" is "elk", the plural of "deer" is certainly "deer". If it was not to be "elk and red deer" it would therefore have to be "elks and red deers". Notwithstanding that, I agree that there is little point in having this category at all: have just Category:Cervus, or subcategories for each whole species.
[The idea that multiple species of deer might be "deers" is, I suspect, by analogy with, say, "wine": lots of wine is still "wine", but we might choose from many "wines" on a restaurant menu. However, the reason for the absence of the "s" from "wine" is that wine-the-substance is a mass noun, so has no plural at all – however a kind of wine is a count noun, so multiple kinds of wine are "wines". In contrast, "deer" is an ordinary count noun which already does have a plural, it's just that the plural is irregular, with no "s"; this applies whether we are speaking of multiple animals or multiple species.] Richard New Forest (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Even if deers were a correct plural (and I think it is only an aberrant one), deer is available as a collective noun and thus appropriate for a category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2010 (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/no consensus. There appears to be consensus to rename, but no consensus on what to rename too, despite a relisting. Discuss and decide on what the cat should be named, then bring back to CFD.. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus to move category:Less-lethal weapons to non-lethal weapons. Article also moved. Non-lethal is the WP:Common name. MarcusQwertyus 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would love to see the lethal launchers. Bottom line, the name has issues.Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lethal launchers" would be a hand-held device launching fragmentation grenades or similar, like an M79 grenade launcher. If the term is just too technical, I understand it might need to be changed for a wider audience. However, "laucher" is indeed the term used in the industry for firearms or pneumatic arms launching grenades, batons, etc., and "less lethal" has, for probably more than a decade, been preferred over "non-lethal". Kind of the same idea as "safer sex"; the more absolute term was seen as possibly dangerously deceptive, implying that you're a-okay nailing someone in the head with a gunpowder-launched foam baton. The term "less lethal" was therefore adopted to let people know "this isn't intended for killing people, but be careful with it to make sure you don't." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is, given the above arguments. Suggest its parent category Non-lethal weapons be renamed to Less-lethal weapons and the main article and its redirect be reversed. Non-lethal is a term of doublespeak; less-than-lethal or less-lethal is more truthful Hmains (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Less-lethal launching weapons to clarify the name. Also Per Hmains rename parent category to Less-lethal weapons and reverse the main article and redirect. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Less-lethal launching weapons per Stuart.Jamieson. I fail to be convinced that there is a good choice for a new name presented so far, but this is better then what we have now. I'm not going to comment on the rats nest involved in renaming the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could not the same launcher be used both for lethal and non-lethal weapons? I recall hearing that rubber bullets were fired during Northern Ireland troubles from pistols designed to fire something else. Anyway, it is the ammo that was non-lethal not the launcher: lauchers do not usually themselves kill! Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some of these launchers are only designed for non lethal products. I agree with your concern since for some, it may well be possible that they could be modified for other purposes. Where do we categorize toner cartriges? Are they lethal or non-lethal? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which way? Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2010 (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.
I would go along with this too. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We even have Category:Christian archbishops by time period. Do the Raëlians have archbishops? I see there was an earlier cfd which dealt partially with this theme (and of course the fingerprints of the legendary Pastorwayne aka Lakemont are all over this tree). Occuli (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the main article is at Raëlism; bishops appear to he the top level leaders of this UFO-related religion. As far as I know this is a small sect. The fact that there are only two articles suggests to me that most leasers are NN, so that one category should be enough, probably distinct from Category:Raëlians (for adherents), but Category:Raëlian leaders might be sufficient to cover all their clergy, if that is an appropriate word. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2010 (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.
