Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Hotel buildings

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hotel is ambiguous (function, structure, business, company, etc), so it would be better to match the parent category where most of these articles came from Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, or more specifically the by year subcategories. If successful, the subcategories would need to be renamed later. This proposal would better match the usage in the majority of the other subcategories in Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Unnecessary precision, the main article is hotel and the main cat is Hotels. The primary meaning of "hotel" is building as far as I know. Brandmeister talk 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename; only hotel buildings can be completed, in reference to construction. The objection to the previous proposal, which I share, was that it is improper to conflate an institution with the building it occupies. By the reasoning of some editors, it seems, the Houses of Parliament would have been established in 1870, when the Houses of Parliament were completed.- choster ( talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename but to Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century, etc. In UK, there are "country house hotels", which are gentlemen's mansions that have been converted to hotels. The building may have been completed in (say) 1830, but only opened as a hotel in (say) 1985. To which category does it belong? Putting it either in the 19th or 20th cnetyury category will be highly misleading as to the date when a hotel was built. The same will apply to many hotels taht were not purpose built. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Buildings are built or constructed. Once that defining activity is complete, the completed building can be opened for use. Opening or establishment generally occurs after the building is completed. While some building are purpose built and belong in multiple trees, they can not be forced there by default. As an example, I ran into a hotel that was listed as being established in the 2000's. The building was built in, as I recall 1885 for industrial use, Chamberlain West Hollywood Hotel is another example. So attempting to force an article like that into something that is intended to equate to equate the building as being completed at later time is a flawed convention. There are also a number of commercial buildings where multiple uses are accommodated like Bay Street Emeryville. This can be offices and retail and several floors of hotel. So in a case like that, we would have a commercial building being completed and a hotel established. So trying to categorize based on the assumption that the entire structure is a hotel is wrong. Also note that there are cases, even where purpose built, where the building is completed and it is opened years later, Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines is an example based on the article content. So clearly the building and its use must be treated separately. Bottom line is that buildings are completed and hotels are opened. The tree here is for building completion and the opening tree is established in. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • And to answer your specific question. The answer is obvious, Category:Houses completed in 1830. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Do not rename Hotel is usually used to refer to a specific location, whether a single building or a complex of buildings. There is no reason to include "building" in the cat title. The uses of the term "church" are different enough that I would make a different statement on the issue, but each term has to be considered in its actual usage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom. This would make these categories consistent with several subcats of Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, for example. It would remove ambiguity when it is clear from parent building and structures categories that buildings are what are what is being documented here. Hotel buildings are 'completed'; hotel businesses are 'established' or 'opened'. Hmains ( talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I really wish we had separate category structures for buildings (objects) and for the businesses. In the case of churches, I'm doubtful that this is possible. But I think it's possible for hotels. But this is going to take editorial work, and likely not something which can be done automatically. - jc37 01:04, 15 November 2012 (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.

Sofia, Bulgaria

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These categories all relate to the city of Sofia in Bulgaria. However, it is surrounded by Sofia Province, which is categorised under Category:Sofia Province. A disambiguator is needed to avoid confusion and miscategorisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Bulgaria has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (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:Underworld (band)

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:27, 16 October 2012 (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:Timbiriche

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:17, 16 October 2012 (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:Turbonegro

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:51, 16 October 2012 (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.

Nuclear power by country

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: The parent category includes only five (Sweden added) countries, only three of which (Belgium, Sweden and the Czech Republic) have nuclear power stations. The subcategory for Belgium has three articles, two of which are about nuclear power stations so are already in the subcategory Category:Nuclear power stations in Belgium. Countries like China, France or the United States with a significant number of nuclear power stations do not have a similar category, and as most articles by country about nuclear energy relate to nuclear power production the “nuclear power” category by country just duplicates the “nuclear energy” category by country. Hugo999 ( talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. If only two categories to be kept, these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear technology by country. However, for the more systematic categories' tree I would prefer to keep all free categories and the stuercture of these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country → Category:Nuclear energy by country → Category:Nuclear technology by country. Beagel ( talk) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (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:The Rebel albums

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per The Rebel and Ben Wallers — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:20, 16 October 2012 (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.

Ring roads

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 as nominated. There was some support for making the US an exception, but no clear consensus to do so. So I close this as rename all to "ring roads" without prejudice to an immediate further discussion on the US (and any countries for which an exception might be made). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:19, 29 October 2012 (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:RMIT University

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:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university is the "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" (according to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 2010 No. 3 of the Parliament of Victoria), and of which the common name used is "RMIT". The names RMIT University and RMIT International University, Vietnam are registered trading names of the two regional branches of the university (as outlined in RMIT's policies and procedures for trading names and corporation company formation policy). "RMIT University" (as the category is currently named) only relates to one branch of the university. As the category in question is used for pages relating to both branches of RMIT, as well as the university as a whole, it should therefore be reflected in the use of the common name "RMIT". NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. “Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology” the name given to the University under its establishing legislation. This is the name which should be used in contractual and other formal documentation involving the University.
  2. “RMIT University” the registered Business Name of the University. This name is also registered as a Trade Mark which incorporates the University’s distinctive pixel.
Per this and the noms point about the Vietnam branch, I think #1 is the better choice. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:47, 18 October 2012 (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:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge, with "former" kept as a subcat. - jc37 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Delete Newly created category merely duplicated content in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. As you can see from: Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in France, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Spain, Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy, just to select a few at random, none of the other categories have 'current' in front of them. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Note Brandmeister says that the category is not standard. This is not true. Look at the analogous Category:Current monarchies which has a "Former" sibling and a "Monarchies" parent. If its good enough for monarchies, why isn't it good enough for dioceses? Ditto Category:Current foreign ministers and Category:Current Brigades of the British Army and Category:Current ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia). Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
When brought to the attention of CfD, "Current" categories have almost always been done away with. The three categories you mention are not part of any wider system of "Current" categories, and being anomalous, will be dealt with in due time. IOW, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here.- choster ( talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Note if Johnpacklambert's suggestion is actioned, then neither this cat nor the Former cat would exist. This would leave all dioceses - both current and former - in just 1 cat together. Please explain to me how this would be an improvement on the status quo. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think nobody supports Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Several have spoken against it. Esoglou ( talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge as proposed, with “Former” as a subcategory (and am dubious about other recent “current” categories for present officeholders eg Category:Current foreign ministers. If someone wants to write a LIST of current foreign ministers, OK. As with buildings and structures where we have say Category:Power stations (ie current) with subcategories for former and maybe proposed power stations. “Former” is generally a subcategory of the main category, which does not have “Current” in the title. Hugo999 ( talk) 02:22, 21 October 2012 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_16&oldid=1138397254"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Hotel buildings

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Hotel is ambiguous (function, structure, business, company, etc), so it would be better to match the parent category where most of these articles came from Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, or more specifically the by year subcategories. If successful, the subcategories would need to be renamed later. This proposal would better match the usage in the majority of the other subcategories in Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Unnecessary precision, the main article is hotel and the main cat is Hotels. The primary meaning of "hotel" is building as far as I know. Brandmeister talk 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename; only hotel buildings can be completed, in reference to construction. The objection to the previous proposal, which I share, was that it is improper to conflate an institution with the building it occupies. By the reasoning of some editors, it seems, the Houses of Parliament would have been established in 1870, when the Houses of Parliament were completed.- choster ( talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename but to Category:Hotels opened in the 19th century, etc. In UK, there are "country house hotels", which are gentlemen's mansions that have been converted to hotels. The building may have been completed in (say) 1830, but only opened as a hotel in (say) 1985. To which category does it belong? Putting it either in the 19th or 20th cnetyury category will be highly misleading as to the date when a hotel was built. The same will apply to many hotels taht were not purpose built. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Buildings are built or constructed. Once that defining activity is complete, the completed building can be opened for use. Opening or establishment generally occurs after the building is completed. While some building are purpose built and belong in multiple trees, they can not be forced there by default. As an example, I ran into a hotel that was listed as being established in the 2000's. The building was built in, as I recall 1885 for industrial use, Chamberlain West Hollywood Hotel is another example. So attempting to force an article like that into something that is intended to equate to equate the building as being completed at later time is a flawed convention. There are also a number of commercial buildings where multiple uses are accommodated like Bay Street Emeryville. This can be offices and retail and several floors of hotel. So in a case like that, we would have a commercial building being completed and a hotel established. So trying to categorize based on the assumption that the entire structure is a hotel is wrong. Also note that there are cases, even where purpose built, where the building is completed and it is opened years later, Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria Philippines is an example based on the article content. So clearly the building and its use must be treated separately. Bottom line is that buildings are completed and hotels are opened. The tree here is for building completion and the opening tree is established in. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
    • And to answer your specific question. The answer is obvious, Category:Houses completed in 1830. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Do not rename Hotel is usually used to refer to a specific location, whether a single building or a complex of buildings. There is no reason to include "building" in the cat title. The uses of the term "church" are different enough that I would make a different statement on the issue, but each term has to be considered in its actual usage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • rename per nom. This would make these categories consistent with several subcats of Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 19th century, for example. It would remove ambiguity when it is clear from parent building and structures categories that buildings are what are what is being documented here. Hotel buildings are 'completed'; hotel businesses are 'established' or 'opened'. Hmains ( talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I really wish we had separate category structures for buildings (objects) and for the businesses. In the case of churches, I'm doubtful that this is possible. But I think it's possible for hotels. But this is going to take editorial work, and likely not something which can be done automatically. - jc37 01:04, 15 November 2012 (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.

Sofia, Bulgaria

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.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename all. These categories all relate to the city of Sofia in Bulgaria. However, it is surrounded by Sofia Province, which is categorised under Category:Sofia Province. A disambiguator is needed to avoid confusion and miscategorisation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
WikiProject Bulgaria has been notified. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (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:Underworld (band)

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:27, 16 October 2012 (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:Timbiriche

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 17:17, 16 October 2012 (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:Turbonegro

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:51, 16 October 2012 (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.

Nuclear power by country

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: The parent category includes only five (Sweden added) countries, only three of which (Belgium, Sweden and the Czech Republic) have nuclear power stations. The subcategory for Belgium has three articles, two of which are about nuclear power stations so are already in the subcategory Category:Nuclear power stations in Belgium. Countries like China, France or the United States with a significant number of nuclear power stations do not have a similar category, and as most articles by country about nuclear energy relate to nuclear power production the “nuclear power” category by country just duplicates the “nuclear energy” category by country. Hugo999 ( talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. If only two categories to be kept, these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country and Category:Nuclear technology by country. However, for the more systematic categories' tree I would prefer to keep all free categories and the stuercture of these categories should be Category:Nuclear power by country → Category:Nuclear energy by country → Category:Nuclear technology by country. Beagel ( talk) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (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:The Rebel albums

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per The Rebel and Ben Wallers — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:20, 16 October 2012 (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.

Ring roads

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 as nominated. There was some support for making the US an exception, but no clear consensus to do so. So I close this as rename all to "ring roads" without prejudice to an immediate further discussion on the US (and any countries for which an exception might be made). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:19, 29 October 2012 (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:RMIT University

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:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university is the "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" (according to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act 2010 No. 3 of the Parliament of Victoria), and of which the common name used is "RMIT". The names RMIT University and RMIT International University, Vietnam are registered trading names of the two regional branches of the university (as outlined in RMIT's policies and procedures for trading names and corporation company formation policy). "RMIT University" (as the category is currently named) only relates to one branch of the university. As the category in question is used for pages relating to both branches of RMIT, as well as the university as a whole, it should therefore be reflected in the use of the common name "RMIT". NouvelleAuteur ( talk) 05:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. “Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology” the name given to the University under its establishing legislation. This is the name which should be used in contractual and other formal documentation involving the University.
  2. “RMIT University” the registered Business Name of the University. This name is also registered as a Trade Mark which incorporates the University’s distinctive pixel.
Per this and the noms point about the Vietnam branch, I think #1 is the better choice. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:47, 18 October 2012 (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:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge, with "former" kept as a subcat. - jc37 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Delete Newly created category merely duplicated content in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland. As you can see from: Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in France, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Spain, Category: Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy, just to select a few at random, none of the other categories have 'current' in front of them. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Note Brandmeister says that the category is not standard. This is not true. Look at the analogous Category:Current monarchies which has a "Former" sibling and a "Monarchies" parent. If its good enough for monarchies, why isn't it good enough for dioceses? Ditto Category:Current foreign ministers and Category:Current Brigades of the British Army and Category:Current ministerial offices in Victoria (Australia). Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply
When brought to the attention of CfD, "Current" categories have almost always been done away with. The three categories you mention are not part of any wider system of "Current" categories, and being anomalous, will be dealt with in due time. IOW, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here.- choster ( talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Note if Johnpacklambert's suggestion is actioned, then neither this cat nor the Former cat would exist. This would leave all dioceses - both current and former - in just 1 cat together. Please explain to me how this would be an improvement on the status quo. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I think nobody supports Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Several have spoken against it. Esoglou ( talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge as proposed, with “Former” as a subcategory (and am dubious about other recent “current” categories for present officeholders eg Category:Current foreign ministers. If someone wants to write a LIST of current foreign ministers, OK. As with buildings and structures where we have say Category:Power stations (ie current) with subcategories for former and maybe proposed power stations. “Former” is generally a subcategory of the main category, which does not have “Current” in the title. Hugo999 ( talk) 02:22, 21 October 2012 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_16&oldid=1138397254"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE