Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3[edit]

Category:Executive branch of the Serbian government[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 26. Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Executive branch of the Serbian government to Category:Government of Serbia.
Nominator's rationale: Merge per the Irish precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 11#Category:Executive branch of the Government of Ireland, the German precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 28#Category:Executive branch of the German Government and the Singapore precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 13# Category:Executive branch of the Singapore Government. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for now. The two precedents cited were of cases where the "executive branch" terminology was not used in the countries concerned. The nominator offers no evidence either way as the what the usage is Serbia, and we should make a decision such as this on the basis of the constitutional terminology of Serbia, not the terminology of other countries.
    This is a mirror of the problem addressed in the discussion on Ireland: in the Irish case, LL had applied the "executive branch terminology" without evidence of its use in Ireland. In this case, LL is trying to remove the same terminology without any evidence either way of Serbian usage.
    I don't know what the usage is in Serbia, but there is no sign that LL knows the answer either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request to strike strong oppose When advocating an "oppose", let alone a "strong oppose", it is usual to either (A) point to flaws in the proposer's logic or (B) introduce new evidence of one's own to support a "no" vote. I see no evidence of (A) in BHG's contribution above. Betting that the nominator does not know something is not the same as proving that the nominator does not know something. Wikipedia is not a casino. I see no evidence of (B) in BHG's contribution above. Indeed she frankly admits "I don't know what the usage is in Serbia". Refreshing as this honesty is, it hardly represents new evidence to oppose. Lastly, BHG says that "LL is trying to remove the same terminology without any evidence either way of Serbian usage". This is not true as the precedents cited contain all the evidence needed for the nomination. As BHG will recall, the discussion on the Irish precedent alone ran over an A4 page; it would as tedious for me to cut 'n' paste those arguments as it would be for editors to read through them. As brevity is the soul of wit, I left them in a compressed form; those with an interest in the topic will no doubt click the link leaving others free to scan the rest of the clutter-free list. I look forward to contributions from Serbians - which reminds me, I must place a notification on their project page, if they have one. The contribution above is also remarkable for the BHG's flexibility in being as keen to oppose the Serbian case as she was to support the identical Irish case. Not content with having won me over to her side with the force of her logic in the Irish precedent, she now seems bent on undoing her good work with this bizarre volte face. In conclusion, the contribution may have have more to do with "IF LL proposes it, then it must be wrong" than with any compelling logic and, if true, would represent an ugly stain on an Administrator's reputation. I invite BGH to think again and to strike out her opposition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LL, when considering a nomination, it is usual to encounter a coherent rationale. That was not the case here.
It is also good practice to refrain from putting words in other people's mouths. I did not "bet" that you had no evidence of the usage in Serbia: I noted that there was no sign that you had any. If you have some up your sleeve, then produce it ... otherwise please stop wasting the time of other editors.
The precedents you cite were of discussions which both hinged on evidence of the actual usage in the countries concerned. Since you have not provided any evidence of the usage in Serbia, either in your nomination or in your rambling response, I will continue to note that you have none. If you do offer some evidence, then I will consider it.
In the meantime, we have no evidence either way, so we stick with the status quo. I'm sorry that LL finds it difficult to understand that there is no point in discussing a change a category name when we have no evidence on which to base such a decision: it would simply be a shift from one "maybe right, maybe wrong" to another "maybe right, maybe wrong" ... and that is a pointless exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of Serbia contains [1] the following article: Article 4: "The legal system is unique. Government system shall be based on the division of power into legislative, executive and judiciary. Relation between three branches of power shall be based on balance and mutual control..."
Article 122: "The Government shall be the holder of executive power in the Republic of Serbia."
Article 125: "The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister, one or more Vice Presidents and ministers."
Article 126: "Member of the Government may not be a deputy in the National Assembly...".
Similar statements exist in the Irish Constitution:"Article 6 1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people...". However, this apparent support was rejected in the final decision. One of the arguments in that case was "The United States constitution views them as difft branches of govt, but that is not the terminology adopted by the Irish constitution. In Ireland, the "executive branch" is the only thing called "Government of Ireland". Those who choose to view Ireland through the doctrine of the tripartite separation of powers may like to apply that label, but it is not the Irish terminology ... and its application to Ireland also ignores the fact that the Oireachtas elects the members of the Government from its own ranks, so the US-style separation does not exist." The same may also be said of Serbia then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:43, 15 May 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:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in integral or transpersonal thought. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Integral or Transpersonal theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum, the category needs a rename to remove unnecessary capitalization: Category:Wikipedians interested in integral or transpersonal theory. A better option may be to replace "theory" with "thought" (e.g. Category:Integral thought), as there does not appear to be a single, clearly defined theory involved: Category:Wikipedians interested in integral or transpersonal thought. However, it seems odd to combine interest in two separate, albeit related, topics into one "either-or" category, and I want to bring the category here for more general discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:44, 3 May 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:Images requiring information for Wikimedia Commons move[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images requiring information for Wikimedia Commons move (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete Unused category, Missing mage information now handled by a different process to the one this category was created for, and I am sure the template which placed images here has also now been through TfD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:35, 3 May 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:Wind energy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Wind energy to Category:Wind power
Nominator's rationale: Merge. At the current stage, the category is quite confusing as most of entries belongs actually to category:Wind power. If kept separately, guidelines for inclusion and cleanup are needed. Beagel (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were previously merged (see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 30#Category:Wind energy) Beagel (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge but leave as redirect. This is a recent creation by the blocked User:NuclearEnergy (not user:Mac etc?? - Nopetro has edited Category:Wind power) and duplicates the long-established target. Occuli (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, there was a lot of talk about the energy/power distinction when it came to solar, thanks to lots of categories created by another banned user, Mac. The consensus such as here and here was that "energy" refers to the physical force, while "power" was to be reserved for the harnessing of it by humans. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 19 May 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:Electric energy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Electric energy to Category:Electric power
Nominator's rationale: Merge. At the current stage, the category is quite confusing as most of entries belongs actually to category:Electric power. If kept separately, guidelines for inclusion and cleanup are needed. Beagel (talk) 06:52, 3 May 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:Electric energy production[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Electric energy production to Category:Electric power generation
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate category created by sockpuppet and consisting only one entry. If necessary, renaming the merged category could be considered. Beagel (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but leave as redirect. This is a recent creation by the blocked User:NuclearEnergy and duplicates the long-established target. Occuli (talk) 08:35, 3 May 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:NLB 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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:NLB league to Category:Liga ABA
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article for this category is now at Liga ABA, and the category title should match, IMHO. Also, NLB is a sponsored name subject to change, while ABA is the organization overseeing the league (Adriatic Basketball Association). Dale Arnett (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Addition to comment: Current category can be kept as a redirect. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:39, 4 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_3&oldid=1074807999"