Category:Boats designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Brunel designed ships, not boats, so clearly this category should be moved. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did design one boat, his chain-hauled dredger Bertha, so perhaps we should consider "Ships and boats by ..." Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I don't think we need "ships and boats" per Andy's suggestion, but "Boat" is obviously inappropriate for the vessels listed in the category. Gatoclass (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is agreed then nominate head category Category:Boats by designer for renaming as "Ships and boats by designer". If an article is created for Bertha, then that would be the time to re-nominate Brunel's category as "Ships and boats...". - Fayenatic(talk) 19:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be in that head category anyway. The boat categories should be limited to boatbuilders, and I don't think we should mix ship and boat designers as it would be doing a disservice to people interested in boats. We may need a "Ships by designer" category if there is no existing alternative, then IMO it would make more sense to have Bertha and other such vessels in a separate boat category rather than in a mixed category. Gatoclass (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fair suggestion; even though the page Category:Ships notes that the distinction between ships and boats is variable, I would guess that if a designer has sufficient notable nautical works to justify a category, there is probably a consensus that he is noted for either one or the other. There is scope for more categories of ships by designer, e.g. the four listed in John W. Griffiths. (One place to start looking would be Category:Naval architects.) So I have struck out my follow-on suggestion above. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:09, 8 July 2011 (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: The purpose of this category is unclear. All murders are committed by either a person or people. The category seems redundant. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean 'murders committed by people'; I didn't intend its scope to be misinterpreted in that way. This is a subcategory of Category:Deaths by person, which is why it is worded the way it is. It contains articles that are titled Murder of [victim's name]. I've added a brief description to the cat. Jim Michael (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this cat for articles that are about notable murders of non-notable people. Subcategories of Category:Murder victims include articles such as John F. Kennedy, Sharon Tate, John Lennon, Jill Dando - biographies of notable people. Hence I believe this cat is worth keeping, though I think rename it to Murders of individuals. Jim Michael (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the title made me think this would be a parent category for categoris like Category:Murders by Ted Bundy and so forth. That is what the form of the form of the title seems to suggest it should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2011 (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:Arab communities outside of Arab League[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The purpose of these two categories is indistinguishable. Fayenatic(talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (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:Delete. Large overlap with Category:Linux science software. Only two entries now, both are also in the other category. - Wojdyr (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is not a unique set of articles to put in this category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (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:Speedy rename per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Also see my comment below for a little probably unneccesary citation of precedents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2011 (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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is what has been done recently with other institution related categories where the institution renamed such as Category:Asbury Univeristy alumni and Category:University of Mount Union alumni. The later is a perfect analogy since it was a school that not only shifted from identifying as a college to identifying as a university, but it like Pikeville went from X College to University of X.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (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, without prejudice to creating a sub-category to hold the sub-categories by year as those have generally been scheduled. - Fayenatic(talk) 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main category "Scheduled events". ArmbrustTalk to meContribs 10:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some future elections are not scheduled, except that they must be held before a particular year/date eg Next Irish general election which must be held by 8 April 2016, but may occur earlier (possibly years earlier if the government loses a vote of confidence). I believe that while the UK parliament is elected for 5 years, the governing party generally calls a new election before the last possible date. Hugo999 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all future elections are scheduled, especially in countries that don't have fixed terms. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all jurisdictions have fixed terms, so cannot be scheduled, some merely have a maximum term limit. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (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, without prejudice to creating a sub-category to hold the sub-categories by year as those have generally been scheduled. Change of plural form is rejected for the reasons given below. - Fayenatic(talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main category "Scheduled events". ArmbrustTalk to meContribs 10:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That category often contains articles on referendums that have been announced as forthcoming but which haven't yet been scheduled. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional renamingreferendums to proper plural of referenda. Vanisaac (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of "proper plural" assumes we are writting in Latin, which we are not. We are writting in English, and English assumes adding s pluralizes evertything unless there is overwhelming precedent for a different form. The general rule is if the word is not supper commonly used, add s because it is not used enough to have a special case of pluralizing. Also, langauge usage changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2011 (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: To match main and daughter category. ("Scheduled events" and "Scheduled human spaceflights" respectively. ArmbrustTalk to meContribs 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per my comments in this CfD, and the outcome of said CfD --GW… 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all of them have been scheduled yet. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment category needs cleanup to get rid of cancelled and already past spaceflights. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is the point of a category for things that have not happened. If they have not happened why do we have articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2011 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created Category of disputed topics most if not all of which are up for AfD -- Evertype·✆ 10:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD topics were deleted. No rationale for this category remains. -- Evertype·✆ 07:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only contents are two sub-categories that are eligible for speedy deletion. Plus, the nomination rationale, above. Vanisaac (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An empty category tree that currently has no useful function.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2011 (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. Since "Lao" is more common than "Laotian". When searching on Google, "Lao people" has 30,800,000 results, whereas "Laotian people" only has 57,100 results. Wikicentral (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding is that "Lao" refers to the ethnicity and "Laotian" to the nationality. As there is a significant ethnic Lao population in Thailand as well as Hmong and other minority groups in Laos, this distinction may be worth preserving as we have done elseshere, e.g. Kazakh vs. Kazakhstani.- choster (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no difference between Lao and Laotian with the exception that "Lao" is the more popular term that is used by the government of Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam to refer to both the ethnicity and nationality of the people of Laos. Regardless of one's ethnicity, anyone who is a citizen of Laos has a "Lao" citizenship, not "Laotian". American-based websites also typically use "Lao" rather than "Laotian". "Laotian" is less common and is merely an alternate form of "Lao". As verified by Google results, over 30 million pages use "Lao people", whereas only about 57 thousand use "Laotian people". We're talking about 30 million versus only 50 thousand. That is a huge difference, which blatantly demonstrates which term is the more widely accepted term. The most commonly used term should be used on Wikipedia for consistency as well as ease of use since based on Google results, most people will type "Lao" rather than "Laotian", but are somewhat persuaded to use "Laotian" on Wikipedia because of the "Laotian" term that is currently used for the parent category. Lao to Laotian is no different than Thai to Siamese. i.e. "Lao people", but "Laotian rock rat". "Thai people", but "Siamese crocodile". The most commonly and widely used terms are "Lao" and "Thai" when referring to the people, whereas sometimes "Laotian" and "Siamese" are used for variety and perhaps even the exotic factor, but overall as verified by Google results, both "Lao" and "Thai" win by a landslide compared to "Laotian" and "Siamese" as far as their use on the internet is concerned. Wikipedia is used by people and based on Google results, most people on the internet use "Lao" and "Thai", not "Laotian" and "Siamese". Thai categories already reflect the more commonly used term, whereas Lao categories are still discrepant. Wikicentral (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laotian is clearly not equivalent to Siamese. Siamese was a perfectly good term when the official name of the country was Siam, but in 1939 the name of the country was changed to Thailand. On the other hand the issue of Lao verses Laotian does not have a historical precedent of changing something to make one form dominant over the other, so it is not an analogous situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessarily equivalent, however, "Siamese" is still used as an alternate form of Thai even in today's world, though less commonly used. You mentioned that "Siamese was a perfectly good term when the official name of the country was Siam". However, there has never been a country called Laotia, therefore, "Laotian people" has never been a perfectly good term using that same logic. Either way, you may disregard Siamese from this topic. It was just an example that was brought up after the fact. Since you disagree with the comparison, you may ignore the mentioning of Siamese and focus instead on the other points. Wikicentral (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of what the king once said before he died: "We Lao are also Thai, but we will never be Siamese". Nightw 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please allow me to provide a breakdown as to why "Lao people" should be used rather than "Laotian people":
1) In the English language, the country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic. The country is not called Laotian People's Democratic Republic.
2) An alternate name for Lao People's Democratic Republic is "Laos" (the plural of Lao, not Laotian).
3) It is more natural for English-speaking readers to extract "Lao people" rather than "Laotian people" from the country's name, which again is Lao People's Democratic Republic.
4) As verified by Google search in the English language, "Laotian people" yields about 57 thousand results, whereas "Lao people" yields over 30 million results.
5) The constitution of Lao People's Democratic Republic (http://www.un.int/lao/constitution.htm) clearly states "The multi-ethnic Lao people" in its preamble.
6) As you can see, the ethnic majority and all ethnic minorities in Lao PDR are collectively known as "Lao people".
7) Article 21 of the Lao constitution defines the following: "Lao citizens are the persons who hold Lao nationality as prescribed by law".
9) Since "Lao people" refers to the nationality, the term "Laotian people" serves no additional purpose because it means the same thing as "Lao people".
10) There is also precedent for renaming a term to something else that is more frequently used in the English language as it is not uncommon to see editors replace a name with a more frequently used name in the English language and justifying their edits with supporting statistical information from Google results. Wikicentral (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per choster, keeping these as "Laotian" could be useful in maintaining a distinction between nationality categories and ethnicity categories. "Lao" could mean ethnicity or nationality, but I don't think "Laotian" is commonly used to refer to ethnicity. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference in meaning between "Lao" and "Laotian" except that "Lao" is the official term used in the constitution, whereas "Laotian" is just an alternate form. There is no distinction between those two terms, which is why "Laotian people" is unnecessary. For example, on [[1]], the text shows "So are you Thai, Japanese, Mien, Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Filipino..." (Laotian, Mien, and Hmong are listed as separate ethnic groups). On [[2]], the text shows "Of the ethnic groups of Lao, Seattle is home to Laotian, Hmong, Mien, and Khmu populations." As you can see, by keeping the category as "Laotian people", you may be indirectly excluding Hmongs, Miens, and Khmus because the 'official' nationality of Laos is of the form "Lao people", not "Laotian people", though Laotian means the same thing as Lao, but it is not the official term and is less commonly used than "Lao". Just like "Lao", the term "Laotian" could mean either ethnicity or nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address the concern of editors who wish to provide a distinction between ethnicity and nationality, a common way to distinguish between the ethnic majority group and ethnic minority groups in Laos is by using "ethnic Lao" when referring to the ethnic majority, whereas "Lao ethnic" is used for an ethnic minority group. "Lao people" is the official nationality of Lao People's Democratic Republic. To distinguish between the various ethnic groups in the country, the term "ethnic" may be used. Therefore, I propose that in addition to renaming the category from "Laotian people" (unofficial term and less commonly used) to "Lao people" (official term and commonly used), the category's description should explain the distinction between "ethnic Lao" (majority) and "Lao ethnic(s)" (minorities), since neither "Lao people" nor "Laotian people" distinguishes between ethnicity and nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with dictionary definitions. I see we're getting some pretty opinionated and non-source-based definitions here, so I think it would be helpful to go to the OED and find out what it says concerning the two terms:
"Lao" : 1. A branch of the Thai people in South-East Asia; also, a member of this people. 2. A group of dialects spoken in Laos and neighbouring areas. 3. Of, concerning, or pertaining to the Lao or their language.
"Laotian" : 1. Of or pertaining to the country of Laos. 2. A native or inhabitant of Laos; also the language of the Laotian people.
I think this makes it clear that in the English language, the meaning of "Lao" is ethnical, whereas the meaning of "Laotian" is national. Since these are nationality categories, "Laotian" is appropriate per the OED defintions of the words. Thus, I have to oppose renaming. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other dictionary definitions. It is clear that the OED definitions provided by Good Ol'factory are unreliable because despite what is stated by that dictionary, Lao people are not a branch of the Thai people. Therefore, how reliable is the information obtained from OED as far as this subject matter is concerned? According to a different dictionary source (Oxford Dictionaries) http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Lao?region=us&rskey=5BXy1s&result=1:
"Lao" : 1. A member of an indigenous people of Laos and northeastern Thailand. 2. The Tai language of the Lao, closely related to Thai. Also called Laotian
I think it is clear that dictionaries are created by people who do not necessarily share the same opinions. The OED definitions provided by Good Ol'factory indicate that a Laotian is "a native or inhabitant of Laos", whereas the Oxford Dictionaries definitions provided by me indicate that Lao is "a member of an indigenous people of Laos and northeastern Thailand". Therefore, depending on which dictionary source you choose to look at, either "Lao" or "Laotian" may refer to the natives (indigenous people) of Laos, which means that both terms may be ethnical.
There is no distinction between "Lao" and "Laotian" as far as ethnicity and nationality are concerned because the ethnic majority group in the Lao PDR is actually "Tai" (not to be confused with Thai), whereas the ethnic minority groups are "Hmong", "Khmu", "Mien", and others, which is why the Lao constitution clearly states that the Lao people are multi-ethnic.
For example, to refer to a Hmong by his Lao nationality, he would simply be "Lao". To refer to him by his ethnicity, he would be "Hmong".
The site http://www.laofamily.org/ takes you to a community-based organization that was founded by Vang Pao, a Hmong from Laos. His company's slogan says "Serving Hmong in Minnesota". Why did a (Lao) Hmong choose to name his company "Lao Family Community of Minnesota, Inc." rather than "Laotian Family Community of Minnesota, Inc." if the slogan states "Serving Hmong in Minnesota"? That's because "Lao" refers to the nationality.
To refer to a Mien by her Lao nationality, she would simply be "Lao". To refer to her by her ethnicity, she would be "Mien".
The site http://www.limcacenter.org/ takes you to "The Lao Iu Mien Culture Association, Inc. (LIMCA) is a non-profit community organization, incorporated in March 1982. LIMCA's mission is to preserve the culture heritage of the Iu Mien who came from the highland Lao tribal community". Again, "Lao" is the nationality, not "Laotian".
Again, the actual ethnicity of the ethnic majority that make up the bulk of the Lao population is Lao of "Tai" ancestry. The next biggest ethnic group is Lao of "Hmong" ancestry. You cannot maintain a distinction between "Lao" and "Laotian" because there has never been a distinction. Both terms may refer to ethnicity or nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose do not mix up ethnic and country categories. The OED definitions seem to work. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is mixing up ethnic and country categories. The country's main ethnic group is Tai, whereas the country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic. The term "Lao people" refers to the nationality of the Lao PDR, which is why we should use "Lao people" as the category. If we wanted to use ethnic categories, we would be using "Tai people", "Hmong people", and "Khmu people". I'm simply proposing that we use "Lao people" because this form is more common than "Laotian people". Both forms refer to ethnicity or nationality. Based on Google results, the use of "Lao people" compared to "Laotian people" on the internet is favored by a ratio of about 540:1 (obtained by simply dividing 30,800,000 by 57,100, which are the number of results obtained by searching for "Lao people" and "Laotian people", respectively, on Google). That difference is too drastic to ignore. Wikicentral (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This site http://www.indexmundi.com/laos/nationality.html clearly shows that Lao and Laotian mean the same thing. They're just alternate spellings of each other. This latest source coupled with the other ones I've provided demonstrate that whatever distinction some editors on here claim to exist between "Lao" and "Laotian" simply do not exist and never has existed. I've provided many sources already that discredit that claim. Both "Lao" and "Laotian" have been used as an ethnicity or a nationality. Wikicentral (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Good Olfactory. Lao in English is a noun both according to OED and Webster's New Universal Dictionary. While Laotian is both a noun and an adjective. According to Webster's:
Lao n., pl. Laos (esp. collectively) Lao for 1.: 1. a member of a people of Laos and northern Thailand. 2. the language of these people, belonging to the Thai group of languages.
Laotian n. 1. a native or inhabitant of Laos. 2. Lao. —adj. 3. of or pertaining to Laos, its people, or their language.GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply untrue. Lao is also both a noun and an adjective. Again, Lao and Laotian mean the same thing. This other Oxford dictionary available at http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/lao clearly shows "adjective" for Lao. It also supports the fact that Lao means "from or connected with Laos". Again, the meaning is no different than "Laotian" as they are two forms of the same thing. Wikicentral (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lao / Laotian No one has been able to prove that there is distinction between "Lao" and "Laotian". The term "Laotian" is not anymore national than "Lao" in the English language.
"Laotian" means Of or pertaining to the country of Laos.
Does "Of or pertaining to the country of Laos" not mean the same thing as "from or connected with Laos"? Therefore, why are some editors still claiming that Lao and Laotian mean different things? They clearly serve the same purpose. Wikicentral (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because some sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's New Universal Dictionary, suggests that there is a difference. I don't think it's clear-cut, and different people use the two words in different ways. Some treat them as equivalent but others do not. Given that, it seems reasonable to retain the usage that everyone agrees can refer to nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources like the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary suggest that the two words are the same. Therefore, we should not use dictionaries to determine a country's nationality. Besides, based on various conflicting sources, not everyone agrees that "Laotian" refers only to the nationality. Some sources suggest that "Laotian" is an ethnicity. Wikicentral (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see a source that suggests that "Laotian" is an ethnicity but not a nationality. Of course, it could be both, and some sources reflect that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not up to the editors on here to decide what is the nationality of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. That determination has already been made by government officials. The CIA World Factbook states that the nationality is Lao(s) or Laotian(s). We should also extend courtesy to the Lao PDR that its own government officials and citizens would know the name of their own nationality.
Since dictionaries could not provide a concrete distinction between the two terms, to decide whether to use "Lao people" or "Laotian people" we must instead focus on the other points that have been brought up in this discussion such as:
(1) The country's name is Lao People's Democratic Republic, whose name evidently promotes the form "Lao people" over "Laotian people" as the nationality.
(2) The constitution of Lao PDR uses the term "Lao people" rather than "Laotian people" and "Lao nationality" rather than "Laotian nationality", which are important facts to take into consideration:
(b) Article 21 of the constitution states: "Lao citizens are the persons who hold Lao nationality as prescribed by law".
(3) "Lao people" is used about 450x more often than "Laotian people" on the internet (using numbers from Google results: 30,800,000 for "Lao people" and only 57,100 for "Laotian people").
Since we have not been able to concretely distinguish between "Lao" and "Laotian" (they deserve equal weight as far as nationality and ethnicity are concerned), and knowing at least those three points listed above, can anyone here provide reasonable justification as to why we should not use the more common form of the nationality (i.e. "Lao people")? Wikicentral (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this discussion is going in circles. Reasons have be provided as you have requested, and you've provided your counterarguments. Obviously there is disagreement as to the best course to follow here, but personally I have not been convinced as to your proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British is to "Lao" as Briton is to "Laotian" - There is no distinction in the national sense, but I've stumbled upon a distinction in usage.
1) A Laotian went to the store / A Briton went to the store
2) She is Lao / She is British
3) They are Lao people / They are British people
However, we do not say "They are Briton people" / "They are Laotian people".
It is more correct to say "They are British people" / "They are Lao people".
When coupled with the word "people", "British" and "Lao" must be used because the words "Briton" and "Laotian" are standalone terms for the citizens of Great Britain and Laos, respectively, as illustrated above. Wikicentral (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary entries to support the above analysis. I analyzed the definitions from the various dictionary sources online including the ones provided by myself and the other participating editors to try and see if it would possible to somehow find some common patterns that could possibly link them together and here is what I've discovered:
1a) BRITISH - the Celtic language of the ancient Britons
1b) LAO - the Tai language of the Lao
2a) BRITON - a native or subject of Great Britain
2b) LAOTIAN - a native or inhabitant of Laos
The dictionary definitions support the form "Lao" being equivalent to "British", and the form "Laotian" being equivalent to "Briton". Wikicentral (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be cherry picking the definitions. British is an adjective which can refer to nationality, while Briton is just a noun. Laotian is both an adjective and a noun so it is not comparable. One can use it say describing Laotian politicians or as a noun to talk about an individual Laotian. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly said I was looking for common patterns in the definitions. Besides, Lao is also an adjective that can refer to nationality. Briton is also both an adjective and a noun as indicated at http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/briton.htm
BRITON (noun)
1. a native or inhabitant of Great Britain
BRITON (adjective)
1. characteristic of or associated with the Britons
Oppose. The category's purpose is tag notable people from the state of Laos. There are Laos outside of Laos, millions even in the Isan region. See, for example, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who is could be categorised as Lao but not Laotian, being as he is Siamese. The creation of a category named Lao people would be an excellent idea to tag subjects (including individuals) of Lao origin. Nightw 16:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can always create additional categories including Category:Lao people and Category:Siamese people, however, both "Lao" and "Laotian" may be used to refer to someone of any ethnicity from the state of Laos. (i.e. http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/lao shows that "Lao" means from or connected with Laos.) Therefore, categorizing Chavalit Yongchaiyudh as Lao would still associate him with the state of Laos. Whether we use Lao or Laotian, either term is associated with the state of Laos. I noticed that you also used the term "Siamese" rather than "Thai". Are you suggesting that Category:Thai people has a different meaning than Category:Siamese people, since you're also treating Category:Laotian people differently than Category:Lao people? Anyway, since both "Lao" and "Laotian" may be used to refer to anyone from the state of Laos regardless of ethnicity, depending on which dictionary source you use, perhaps Category:Laos people would be the more appropriate category to tag notable people from the state of Laos? Wikicentral (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Good Ol'Factory's citation of the OED. The constitution of Laos is not in English so anything it says is open to translation. In my experience the term used is almost always Laotian. Laos is not a plural of Lao but a different form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (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:Category already deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (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: Michigan doesn't have any toll roads, pure and simple. The only contents of this category is a subcategory for toll bridges. I propose just putting Category:Toll bridges in Michigan in the Category:Transportation in Michigan in place of this one and discarding a category that will never be used. Imzadi 1979→ 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for category. Dough4872 04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same could be said for the Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, and Washington categories; on the other hand, we do usually permit single-entry categories which are part of a defined system.- choster (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of the overall category structure here in which 'toll bridges' are always a subcat of 'toll roads'. Hmains (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category structure can be used to justify small categories. It is a bit much to use it to justify an empty category. Toll bridges still could be put directly under transportation by invoking the rule that allows for putting something in a higher level category when it is directly relevant to that even if it also fits in a subcat. To me that seems like the best compromise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert, as long as we follow Eureka's restructure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 11:44, 2 July 2011 (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:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename or Delete or maybe leave alone with a rewritten introduction. Delete is the best choice since this category is not supported by the text in most, if not all, of the articles. Rename since we tend to avoid classifying by previous usage. Rename as Category:14th-century former Roman Catholic church buildings since they were former RC church buildings repurposed for another use, even if a church for a different denomination, but then the introduction needs a rewrite to explain the inclusion criteria. But then what does former mean? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate rename to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings built in the 14th century. There are multiple reason for this. First off buildings are built, not established. Parishes, monastic associations or whatever you call it (even if it is just one monestery) are established, but they are not the buildings. There is no reason to limit this to buildings no longer used and we want it limited to things established in the century, otherwise we would set up a system to put buildings in each century during which they were used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like your last suggestion, but what would the sub-categories be called? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be ignoring the main issue. Church buildings are built, not established. Parishes, dioceses, deaconates and other Church structural apperatus are established, but Church buildings are built, and so the category needs to reflect that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But that is clearly not the only issue. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with built is that these buildings tend to undergo major reconstructions. So when you say build, what does it mean? There were objections to including built in category names. But as they say, consensus can change. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a CFD on June 9 that set this shorter pattern of "category:year thing" for church buildings. At the moment the longer pattern is only otherwise being used for bridges and amusement parks within the year-categories in Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion. I support nominating all these to be renamed to the short pattern, to match most other types of works in Category:Works by type and year. The pattern of "Things established in year" is fine for organisations, including church congregations within Category:Christian organizations by century; many articles on churches may end up with one category for the year of establishment and another for the year of completion/opening of the current building. - Fayenatic(talk) 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The June 9th CfD had three participants. They clearly did not consider the fact that calling something "A Church building of year X" is ambiguous, and not a clear indication that it is completed in that year. It seems unwise to me to create a whole new system on the assumption that a decision by three editors should become binding policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to alternative rename to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century. There are precedents for John's suggestion to use a longer name: the head category is Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 14th century, which is part of a consistent hierarchy, and train stations are similarly categorised as "railway stations opened in year-xx". Moreover he is correct that this longer name is less ambiguous, as it emphasises that the buildings were Roman Catholic churches at the date of completion, which is helpful in the case of those that were later used by other denominations. Note that my suggestion has a lower case "church", using "Roman Catholic" as an adjective and "church building" as a noun. The additional "converted" categories should also be added; I'm willing to set those up if approved. - Fayenatic(talk) 10:22, 12 July 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Since many of these weight class names are used in sports other than boxing, it makes sense to specify that these are boxers. As for the last category listed, which is the container category for these—technically, these categories sort by "weight class", not by "weight" (the parent category is Category:Boxing weight classes). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Because these categories contain boxers, this should be renamed, as other sports (I'm sure; as an example: MMA) use weightclasses as well.Curb Chain (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Per nom and Curb Chain. Also Judo and Tae Kwon Do also have Lightweight, Middleweight and Heavyweight classes. GcSwRhIc (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2011 (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.
