Category:Nuclear power plants in Massachusetts[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:reverse merge. – FayenaticLondon 00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. While both names can be used, the target matches the naming of both parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although a broader nomination of the majority of "plant" based categories should really be included as well. That said, the vast majority of these are very small categories and I think they would be better treated in an upmerge to the main Category:Nuclear power stations in United States and Category:Power stations in X State. I don't see a need to subdivide down to the state level. We can see here that most states do not have many power stations of all types, so the current overly fractured structure hinders navigation. SFB 10:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, support reverse merge. The other states all use the category “nuclear power plants” not “nuclear power stations” so this naming should be maintained here for Mass. Note that there are up to six categories of power stations/plants per state (coal, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear, wind) hence the whole tree would be compromised if a few categories with one or two state articles were upmerged. Here power plant rather than power station seems to be a local (American) usage. Hugo999 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REverse merge and rename US parent to match the other subcats. However this is US usage, and should not alter higher level categories or thoise ofr other nations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (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. – FayenaticLondon 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be the best name for this category based on naming guidelines and category contents. (Though some may prefer the "foo in popular culture" structure.) If renamed, the main list List of Irish Traveller-related depictions and documentaries could follow suit, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggestion includes all content and matches style used already in the structure. SFB 10:53, 19 December 2014 (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. – FayenaticLondon 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles, all of which are well interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also confusion with what should be categorized here, since there's no Nights (series), and the most logical use would be 1001 Nights stories -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2014 (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 - Even those in support seem to be concerned about the current "standard". So with that in mind, no prejudice against an immediate group nom to reverse the status quo (or to not to, whichever the case may be). - jc37 05:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There are two issues with the current name: (1) it does not conform with the overall convention of Category:Law by country, which is to use "FOOian law" (with "American" being the proper "FOOian" form for the U.S., as has been established many times at CFD; cf. Category:American culture and Category:American society); (2) the name could imply that it is limited in scope to laws of the jurisdiction of the United States federal government, but in fact it is the overall top container category for all American law, including the law of individual U.S. states and territories. (In legal usage, "United States law" usually means legislation of Congress and case law from the U.S. federal courts.) The category was named this way in 2004 but has never been formally discussed. It's possible that it was originally intended to hold content on federal law but has since been expanded to become a container for content for all American jurisdictions. Subcats: Yes, I know there are a ton of subcategories that use the same format; if the rename proceeds, I agree to pursue those as get them renamed to match, where appropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with qualification I definitely think there should be consistency about these names and that the United States shouldn't be singled out but I also think we should definitely not use the "Fooian [x]" form because of Dominica/Dominican Republic and Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of the Congo (as well as places that have no demonym other than their name, such as "New Zealand [x]" and "Bosnia and Herzegovina [x]"). Since the scope of this discussion is just this one category, please do rename and then speedily rename the subcats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For consistency. More than happy to address the choice between "[country] law" and "[nationality] law" naming types on a different, wider nomination. SFB 12:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Law in/of [country]" was recently proposed here, but consensus was for the FOOian form. I don't think we've ever gone through a broad consideration of "[country] law", though. Adopting that format would certainly be unique! Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all law categories should move to countryname form, not demonym form, since the demonym form causes too many problems. Is a French law, a law concerning the language French (which exists in many parts of the world, to restrict French, or prescribe its use, or to restrict non-French use, etc), a law concerning ethnic French (such as colonial laws favoring people from France), or laws from France itself. This same problem occurs over and over again. Further, the root category is called Category:United States and the category tree uses "United States", such as Category:Presidents of the United States not Category:American presidents, Category: Supreme Court of the United States not Category:American Supreme Court, etc -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my point (2) in the nomination. This category goes beyond the jurisdiction of the United States—it also includes subnational state jurisdictions. Also, there is no other subcategory tree that has adopted the "FOOian BAR" form that uses "United States" as the FOOian. It's a total anomaly. If you want to propose abandoning the FOOian form for this tree, you could do so (although the recently proposal to implement one form of it was rejected), but I don't see such a hope for the future as a good reason to oppose the implementation of the existing form. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Support While I would prefer countryname format instead of demonym across the board, I can't support this exception to a well established format. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose Good Ol’factory: Surely one cannot characterize the previous cfd you have been alluding to as ”consensus supporting Fooian law“??? I see no such consensus at all!!!
Category:United States is the top category and it has only 2 sub-categories called "American" and 20 called "United States". These subcategories open into thousands of sub-sub-sub-categories and the word “american" appears in only a very few, such as: Category:American media which has been (Robot: Moved from Category:United States media) -- probably a result of another wp:CFD.
This whole process makes no sense to me - why run this current CFD with only a handful of participants addressing only one category out of hundreds??? Why disrupt this category for weeks with big ugly tags that force those who want to use it (it gets almost 500 views per month) to scroll to the bottom to see its contents? Surely we want to encourage more people to use categories and not less? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However you want to classify the previous discussion, there's certainly no consensus to use "Law of FOO" or "FOO law". "FOOian law" is clearly dominant in the various subcategories of Category:Law by country. This is one of the few outliers. However many immediate subcategories of Category:United States use "American" is largely irrelevant, since both formats are used depending on the tree. (There are plenty of them, though, when the category tree is in that format—Category:American people, Category:American society, Category:American culture.) What is more significant is what format categories in the Category:Law tree take, since there is an accepted standard within this tree.
(The fact that a template exists on the nominated category seems to be a completely extraneous issue to this discussion. When categories get nominated for renaming, they get tagged with a template—that's the way we've agreed to work the system. If that still makes no sense to you, it might be time to start at first principles and work forward from there.)
Anyway, no one is favor of the current name has really explained why we should accept a "FOO law" format. "FOOian law" makes sense, as would "Law of FOO". But "FOO law" is just a milquetoast halfway house that makes it look like someone couldn't make up their mind. Truth be told, it was created in this format before the convention for Category:Law by country was established. It's about time it was renamed to conform and to abandon the American exceptionalism in this instance (or should that be "United States exceptionalism"?). Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "FOOian law" categories in Category:Law by country are fairly long-standing; I have not recently created them. I have recently created some subcategories, which follow the overall convention. If you think they are misnamed, you're free to nominate them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
’’Comment:’’’ Can someone please terminate this so-called discussion? This is not helping Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to participate in a discussion if you don't approve of it happening. The only reason I would categorize this as a "so-called" discussion is that no user is responding directly to the arguments I have made by explaining why the current form should be preferred. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: Thank you for allowing me not to participate. It suppose I also should not have wasted my time starting the discussion at:Category talk:American law by year#United States or American? shortly before you made this nomination (and neglected to inform me). The point is you are inconveniencing other editors by keeping this open for so long. Surely, as an admin on Wikipedia, you should consider this as well? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no control over how long the discussion remains open. Because I started the nomination, I cannot close it as an admin. While ideally it should have been closed by now (or at least relisted), I don't think it's that big of a deal or much of an inconvenience to anyone. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can withdraw this ill-conceived nomination, no? (btw I am inconvenienced b y this nomination, so others may be as well). Ottawahitech (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could in theory withdraw it—but why would I since I still support the nomination? At this stage I also don't think it would be wise to withdraw it, since the proposal has received some significant support. From my perspective, the support has been based on category guidelines while those opposed appear to just be saying WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (subcategories) (and I've already pledged to fix the OTHERSTUFF if this rename is done). Anyway, having an ongoing-CFD template on a category is hardly a huge inconvenience. My advice would be "suck it up". Since you're anxious to have it closed, you could list it as a backlogged admin issue. (I note that there are even older CFDs that are not yet closed, however.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That IP address made a legitimate argument I think. If we could go back in time, I might argue that the best way of doing this is "Law in COUNTRY" to work for all forms, but that does not appear to be possible now. Dustin(talk) 17:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that arguing that we should use "Law in COUNTRY" is completely legitimate. The problem is—we can't really implement it for this one category and not all the others, and when it was proposed that we make this change in this discussion, there was no consensus for it. So I think we need to at least conform to the convention that exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ONE category. There are at least two, the other being Category:Law in the United Kingdom. The majority of law articles are included in these two categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 200+ categories that use the "FOOian law" format. I would regard the UK as a special case, given the multiple meanings of "British law" and that it was specifically discussed here and consensus was to keep the current name. The U.S. category is supported by no similar consensus discussion and there's no similar ambiguity issues. (In fact, using "United States law" creates the opposite problem—it is unnecessarily specific and could imply the exclusion of U.S. state law.) The U.S. category was just created by somebody who thought it was a good name, but it's not, really, for the reasons I've outlined in the nomination, primarily in (2). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The potential issue you cite has nothing really to do with this nomination. In fact, this nomination is intended to bring an increased consistency and clarity to the categories, not an increased divergence and ambiguity. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 23 February 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There does seem to be some documentation of the topic on the neighbourhoods article as well as in external notes. I agree that more definition on Wikipedia would be useful though. SFB 13:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does south and west of Portland count as something called southwest Portland? Since leaves this ambiguous and subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegaswikian: It doesn't look like a subjective case. It appears that the borders of the Southwest Portland area are defined. SFB 10:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "SW Portland" ia a false specificity for that city, it is not an easily definable area, nor would this sort of subdivision be of interest to any but a tiny fraction of WP users. The city as a whole, on the other hand, is the category that makes logical sense. (I live 90 minutes south of Portland, for what it's worth.) Carrite (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on different grounds though, WP:ARBITRARYCATWP:TRIVIALCAT. The US Post Office labels specific boundaries within the city as "Southwest" that can be easily checked but so what? How is that eighth of the city different than the other 7 compass directions used in addresses? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I live in Portland so I can add a first hand but biased perspective. The city is divided into five defined sections--North, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest--and residents use these terms very often. They are defined by geography or specific roads. The Willamette River divides east and west. Burnside St divides north and south. North Williams Ave separates northeast and north. The "quadrants" (for lack of a better term, or to say as the locals do) house neighborhood subcategories, which also have specific boundaries. There are some instances in which neighborhoods cross a border from one quadrant into another, but a large majority of them are entirely within a specific quadrant. This is basic Portland geography, hence why the quadrants are within geography of Portland category (would it help or hurt if the quadrant categories were in the parent Portland category?). I guess my argument is really that the quadrant categories are not ambiguous, as the nomination suggests. (I should also point out that I am currently working on a major categorization by geography project on the talk page of WikiProject Oregon. I am open to a continued discussion, but I certainly see value in categorizing Wikipedia articles by neighborhood and/or city quadrant (depending on whether or not a neighborhood category is a subcategory of a quadrant)). ---Another Believer(Talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For the reasons mentioned above. The five 'quadrants' are frequently used locally to distinguish the areas of Portland, and they are also used in travel magazines and other media aimed primarily at outsiders. Although the origin is in the street addressing system, I believe they have entered into the common language in a way that the more complicated system used in Seattle has not, to the best of my knowledge. The only sources of ambiguity are (a) how to describe points actually on one of the dividing lines, e.g., is the median on West Burnside in NW or SW? and (b) areas which span across one of the dividing lines, e.g., is Old Town Chinatown in NW or SW? Other than these sorts of unavoidable boundary issues, the categorization is completely unambiguous. YBG (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Just to respond to your Burnside comment. I actually added the Burnside Bridge to the NW, NE, SE and SW quadrants (or an appropriate neighborhood subcategory). ---Another Believer(Talk) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionWhat is the goal here? The result of the category so far appears to be to take articles from Category:Buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon that are subdivided well as in smallish categories like libraries, schools, houses, etc. and then to dump them all loose into a large quadrant category. When this split by quadrant is done, what will it look like? What is the goal?RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to group articles by geography. The Southwest Portland category, like its North, Northeast, Northwest and Southeast counterparts, each contain subcategories for neighborhoods which lie within its boundaries and other related articles. This is no different than geographic categories for cities like New York, Washington, D.C., etc. In addition to creating categories for neighborhoods, I am creating navigation boxes so that readers can view other articles related to the vicinity of interest. For example, Template:Pearl District, Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer(Talk) 23:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is based on well-specified local boundaries, comparable to the quadrants of Washington, D.C. It looks like the nominator's statement is the result of a misunderstanding; if we added a couple of explanatory sentences to the top of the category, it would be easier for everyone to understand. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2014 (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.
