- 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 at CFD 2014 January 16. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Persian noble families to Category:Iranian noble families -- Many of these noble families were not only of Persian origin, they were of Parthian, Dailamite, and Sogdian -- all which belong to the Iranian group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 December 2013
Anyone? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hi. Nominator's nomination reads like the rationale for a rename in the opposite direction. After all, "Persian" is a superset of "Iranian". Dictionary-wise, "Persia" and "Iran" are the same, but dictionaries restrict themselves to semantic level. Going to up to pragmatics and discourse analysis levels, "Iran" is only taken to refer to Islamic Republic of Iran, which makes up half of the political news. "Persia", meanwhile, conjures up the image of the Persian empire, the land, and so on. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 01:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here
Iranian peoples and here
Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this
Kurdish people,
Lurs,
Gilaki people. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again. First, please indent your replies properly. Second, language use might deviate from logical rules; one needs to learn English as it is used, not according to one's own logic. "Persian" and "Persia" are not the same thing. (At least, not at pragmatics level.) Metonymy is often used in English. These group that you mentioned, might or might not be Persians, but they certainly are part of the Persia's history.
- No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here
Iranian peoples and here
Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this
Kurdish people,
Lurs,
Gilaki people. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, perhaps another user can provide an oversight. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. I think normally this would be a delete, however the participation even after a relisting is very small, and BrownHairedGirl has a very fair point. Since the media files are still with us, the "too small" problem does not seem to exist... yet. - Splash - tk 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only three articles, zero chance of expansion. The media files outside the title card should probably be deleted, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the small amount of material. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The category contains 8 items (5 files and 3 articles) which is quite enough for a viable category. If the media files were deleted, then the categ would indeed be too small; but they still exist, and file deletion is not a CFD issue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 to Tate galleries. Consensus is that the term "Tate" alone is too ambiguous. As pointed out by BrownHairedGirl, neither the proposal for the Tate Gallery or Tate (museum) are workable; there are multiple Tate galleries now, and "Tate museum" is not in common usage. The "Tate galleries" option appears to be uncontentious. — Scott • talk 10:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Proposal A
-
- Propose renaming Category:Tate Gallery to Category:Tate
- Propose renaming Category:Directors of the Tate Gallery to Category:Directors of the Tate
- Proposal B
-
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the Tate to Category:People associated with the Tate Gallery
- Propose renaming Category:Collection of the Tate to Category:Collection of the Tate Gallery
- Propose renaming Category:Tate structures to Category:Tate Gallery structures
- Nominator's rationale: Proposal A was suggested at WP:CFDS, but it was opposed with the rationale, that it's ambiguous. I have no opinion on that, but the categories should consistently use either "Tate", "Tate Gallery" or a third option determined by consensus. I have no preference for either of them. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Copy of speedy nomination
|
|---|
|
- Prefer proposal A. The term "Tate Gallery" hasn't been in official use since 2000, so it would be best to avoid it. The institution's preferred usage in its official literature is "Tate" without the definite article (see e.g.
"Working at Tate"). "(The) Tate" is meant to be a compromise between the official branding and more idiomatic usage. I don't think disambiguation to prevent confusion is necessary but if others disagree I'd prefer something like "Tate galleries" to "Tate Gallery".
Ham
14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the way consensus is currently heading, but I'd suggest deleting the "Tate structures" category altogether if we're going to go ahead with "Tate galleries". Tates Britain, Modern. Liverpool and St Ives could then be at the top of the parent "Tate galleries" category. Ham 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries" to avoid ambiguity with with other topics listed at
Tate (disambiguation).
Since the opening in 1998 of Tate Liverpool, there is no longer a single Tate Gallery, and there are now 4 of them. So the singular form "Tate Gallery" is no longer viable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC) - Rename all to Tate galleries. I was going to oppose Option A since it is inherently ambiguous. BHG provides a very sound reason to clearly choose the plural over the singular so I'll support her proposal. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries". Most widely recognised name. Suggest upmerging "Tate structures" since all the included "structures" are actually galleries. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Prefer "Tate Gallery": it is still an art gallery. If we are to adopt their present style, it should be "The Tate" (capitalised so). Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- or "Tate galleries". If we go for the "Tate" option the target should be Category:The Tate and Category:Directors of The Tate, (so capitalised). Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not "Tate". I don't particularly care what other form we use, but "Tate" by itself is a very bad idea — it's not some worldwide-known name, and "Tate" can mean lots of other things (tons of people, for example), so using it by itself would be very confusing. Nyttend ( talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- how about Tate (museum) - adding the dab makes it clear that we're not inventing a new natural DAB, rather we're keeping the way it is naturally referred to (e.g. director of the Tate (museum)). This is similar to how we handle Georgia (country) for example.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: While this dicussion could be closed as "Rename as B", I think that
Obi-Wan Kenobi's proposal is worth examining first.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Obiwankenobi's proposal" or B if that doesn't work. Makes sense to disambiguate it more generally, because Tate is an ambiguous term by itself. Sadads ( talk) 17:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support proposal B. "The Tate Gallery" is less ambiguous. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose "Tate", that's exceedingly ambiguous, regardless of what the article is, categories are not articles, and require much maintenance for such an ambiguously named container, which will inevitably acquire all things named Tate -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries" Johnbod ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Obi proposal of "museum" does not accord with common usage. 117K ghits for "Tate museum", but 526K ghits for "Tate gallery". Using Google books (preferred, because it concentrates reliable sources), we get only 3K ghits for "Tate museum" versus 489K ghits for "Tate gallery". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rename all to using "Tate gallery". Also we should probably rename the article. It's current name reflects too much a British-centric view of the world, not dealing with the reality that English is a functionally used language in most of the world. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Commedia sexy all'italiana. - Splash - tk 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Infermiera films to Category:Commedia sexy all'italiana
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Not a real series of films, just three films with a nurse (infermiera) in the title, but every film is unrelated to the others, has different cast, characters and plots. Not even a real trend in the commedia sexy all'italiana genre, as these three are the only three films with a nurse/infermiera as the main character. Cavarrone 18:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. This is overcategorisation by shared name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merge This is an example of overcategorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Office suites for Linux. - Splash - tk 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Linux office suite software to Category:Office suites for Linux
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with Linux. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per sister Category:Office suites for Windows. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Office suites for OS X, but this has been done already, so I'll delete. - Splash - tk 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:OS X office suite software to Category:Office suites for OS X
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with OS X. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The pages have been moved to the proprosed category. -- Glenn ( talk) 16:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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 delete per WP:CSD#C1 and WP:CSD#G7. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Windows office suite software to Category:Office suites for Windows
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with Windows. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The pages have been moved to the proprosed category. --
Glenn (
talk)
16:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is long established that you shouldn't empty out a category while it is at CFD.
...William
12:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Glenn is the original creator and sole contributor, so WP:SNOW. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is long established that you shouldn't empty out a category while it is at CFD.
...William
12:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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. The debate does not seem to converge in any direction on any of the topics that are raised for discussion. - Splash - tk 22:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jewish-Christian debate to Category:Christian–Jewish debate
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DASH and alphabetizing. I always go with alphabetical order for neutrality's sake so as to not prejudice article titles. Alternate proposal: Upmerge into more generic Christian–Jewish categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral on order, since Judaism came first don't see that alphabet has to be applied, but don't have a strong opinion. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose alternative "Upmerge"(?) The suggestion to "upmerge" presumably effectively means "delete" and instead add Category:Christianity and Judaism and Category:Jewish apologetics to all 12 articles. Can't see that helps anyone. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Question. What is this category for? There is no head article, but the contents suggest that it it relates to a set of theological debates in the middle ages and earlier. However the title allows a massively broader scope.
Can anyone clarify? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. I'd like to see an adjective or additional noun here, Jews and Christians debate what? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral The category name could be changed to Category:Christian–Jewish debate as suggested, since I believe it refers to all sorts of theological disputations between Western Christians (Roman Catholics) and Jews that occurred throught the Middle Ages, both early and later Middle Ages, up to the 16th century. All these disputations occurred at the initiative of the Christian majority's leaders (Church Bishops) in an attempt to convert the Jewish minority to Christianity and to possibly erase the "Jewish question" in medieval Jewish society. warshy (¥¥) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Since these articles are on multiple debates, should not the category be using debates? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would really call it "Christian-Jewish Disputations." warshy (¥¥) 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes "disputations" is better, and a period disam is needed. Rename to Category:Christian–Jewish disputations in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Johnbod ( talk) 11:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Terms such as "Judeo-Christian" and " Jewish Christian" are established, and I don't remember hearing comparable phrases in which Christians come before Jews. In my mind, this means that the current name is more natural, more in line with normal English usage, than the proposed new name. Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are correct for things that are common to both religions, and which follow from one to the orher chronologically, as in e.g. "Judeo-Christian ethics" or the like. For these medieval theological disputations we are talking about, I believe they were always initiated by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic church in Christian Europe, and as such the suggestes title "Christian-Jewish Disputations in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages" would still be the best option IMO.
warshy
(¥¥)
15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't attempting to address anything except the order of the words; I'm not entering into the question of whether it should be "debate" or "disputations in..." or anything else. Sorry for not being clear enough — looking at it now, 9 hours after making it, I can see why my comment didn't reflect my meaning. Nyttend ( talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are correct for things that are common to both religions, and which follow from one to the orher chronologically, as in e.g. "Judeo-Christian ethics" or the like. For these medieval theological disputations we are talking about, I believe they were always initiated by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic church in Christian Europe, and as such the suggestes title "Christian-Jewish Disputations in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages" would still be the best option IMO.
warshy
(¥¥)
15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rename To put Christian first, since these were initiated by Christian. Jewish Christians have no relevance here, since they are like Roman Christians, English Christians etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 RESULT. Normally, this would get relisted by closing admin. However the CfD backlog is large at the moment, so I will leave it to the nominator (or others) if they consider this matter still needing assistance of CfD after the passage of time since the nomination. - Splash - tk 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Walt Disney movie posters to Category:Disney animated features posters
- Nominator's rationale: I believe this category rename would better reflect the cat's parameters per its description as well as that of the main article List of Disney theatrical animated features, and the parent category Category:Disney animated features canon. However, if others have a better suggestion, that's fine, too. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What about Walt Disney film posters? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The use of "Walt" doesn't seem to be necessary in these Disney film cats. As for the rest of the name, I was just trying to reflect the theatrical features focus of the existing category, which does not include certain TV or direct to video films, apparently. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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: relisted at CFD 2014 January 16. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Persian noble families to Category:Iranian noble families -- Many of these noble families were not only of Persian origin, they were of Parthian, Dailamite, and Sogdian -- all which belong to the Iranian group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 December 2013
Anyone? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 15:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hi. Nominator's nomination reads like the rationale for a rename in the opposite direction. After all, "Persian" is a superset of "Iranian". Dictionary-wise, "Persia" and "Iran" are the same, but dictionaries restrict themselves to semantic level. Going to up to pragmatics and discourse analysis levels, "Iran" is only taken to refer to Islamic Republic of Iran, which makes up half of the political news. "Persia", meanwhile, conjures up the image of the Persian empire, the land, and so on. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 01:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here
Iranian peoples and here
Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this
Kurdish people,
Lurs,
Gilaki people. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again. First, please indent your replies properly. Second, language use might deviate from logical rules; one needs to learn English as it is used, not according to one's own logic. "Persian" and "Persia" are not the same thing. (At least, not at pragmatics level.) Metonymy is often used in English. These group that you mentioned, might or might not be Persians, but they certainly are part of the Persia's history.
- No it does not? so you are saying that other Iranian groups like Dailamites, Sogdians, Parthians, Medians (Medes) were called for Persians? well, then i must tell you that you are wrong. Take a look here
Iranian peoples and here
Persian people. You see? not the same. Also take a look on this
Kurdish people,
Lurs,
Gilaki people. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, perhaps another user can provide an oversight. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. I think normally this would be a delete, however the participation even after a relisting is very small, and BrownHairedGirl has a very fair point. Since the media files are still with us, the "too small" problem does not seem to exist... yet. - Splash - tk 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only three articles, zero chance of expansion. The media files outside the title card should probably be deleted, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - small eponymous category, not needed for the small amount of material. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 00:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The category contains 8 items (5 files and 3 articles) which is quite enough for a viable category. If the media files were deleted, then the categ would indeed be too small; but they still exist, and file deletion is not a CFD issue. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 to Tate galleries. Consensus is that the term "Tate" alone is too ambiguous. As pointed out by BrownHairedGirl, neither the proposal for the Tate Gallery or Tate (museum) are workable; there are multiple Tate galleries now, and "Tate museum" is not in common usage. The "Tate galleries" option appears to be uncontentious. — Scott • talk 10:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Proposal A
-
- Propose renaming Category:Tate Gallery to Category:Tate
- Propose renaming Category:Directors of the Tate Gallery to Category:Directors of the Tate
- Proposal B
-
- Propose renaming Category:People associated with the Tate to Category:People associated with the Tate Gallery
- Propose renaming Category:Collection of the Tate to Category:Collection of the Tate Gallery
- Propose renaming Category:Tate structures to Category:Tate Gallery structures
- Nominator's rationale: Proposal A was suggested at WP:CFDS, but it was opposed with the rationale, that it's ambiguous. I have no opinion on that, but the categories should consistently use either "Tate", "Tate Gallery" or a third option determined by consensus. I have no preference for either of them. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Copy of speedy nomination
|
|---|
|
- Prefer proposal A. The term "Tate Gallery" hasn't been in official use since 2000, so it would be best to avoid it. The institution's preferred usage in its official literature is "Tate" without the definite article (see e.g.
"Working at Tate"). "(The) Tate" is meant to be a compromise between the official branding and more idiomatic usage. I don't think disambiguation to prevent confusion is necessary but if others disagree I'd prefer something like "Tate galleries" to "Tate Gallery".
Ham
14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the way consensus is currently heading, but I'd suggest deleting the "Tate structures" category altogether if we're going to go ahead with "Tate galleries". Tates Britain, Modern. Liverpool and St Ives could then be at the top of the parent "Tate galleries" category. Ham 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries" to avoid ambiguity with with other topics listed at
Tate (disambiguation).
Since the opening in 1998 of Tate Liverpool, there is no longer a single Tate Gallery, and there are now 4 of them. So the singular form "Tate Gallery" is no longer viable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC) - Rename all to Tate galleries. I was going to oppose Option A since it is inherently ambiguous. BHG provides a very sound reason to clearly choose the plural over the singular so I'll support her proposal. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries". Most widely recognised name. Suggest upmerging "Tate structures" since all the included "structures" are actually galleries. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Prefer "Tate Gallery": it is still an art gallery. If we are to adopt their present style, it should be "The Tate" (capitalised so). Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- or "Tate galleries". If we go for the "Tate" option the target should be Category:The Tate and Category:Directors of The Tate, (so capitalised). Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not "Tate". I don't particularly care what other form we use, but "Tate" by itself is a very bad idea — it's not some worldwide-known name, and "Tate" can mean lots of other things (tons of people, for example), so using it by itself would be very confusing. Nyttend ( talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- how about Tate (museum) - adding the dab makes it clear that we're not inventing a new natural DAB, rather we're keeping the way it is naturally referred to (e.g. director of the Tate (museum)). This is similar to how we handle Georgia (country) for example.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: While this dicussion could be closed as "Rename as B", I think that
Obi-Wan Kenobi's proposal is worth examining first.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support Obiwankenobi's proposal" or B if that doesn't work. Makes sense to disambiguate it more generally, because Tate is an ambiguous term by itself. Sadads ( talk) 17:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support proposal B. "The Tate Gallery" is less ambiguous. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose "Tate", that's exceedingly ambiguous, regardless of what the article is, categories are not articles, and require much maintenance for such an ambiguously named container, which will inevitably acquire all things named Tate -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename all to "Tate galleries" Johnbod ( talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Obi proposal of "museum" does not accord with common usage. 117K ghits for "Tate museum", but 526K ghits for "Tate gallery". Using Google books (preferred, because it concentrates reliable sources), we get only 3K ghits for "Tate museum" versus 489K ghits for "Tate gallery". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rename all to using "Tate gallery". Also we should probably rename the article. It's current name reflects too much a British-centric view of the world, not dealing with the reality that English is a functionally used language in most of the world. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Commedia sexy all'italiana. - Splash - tk 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Infermiera films to Category:Commedia sexy all'italiana
- Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Not a real series of films, just three films with a nurse (infermiera) in the title, but every film is unrelated to the others, has different cast, characters and plots. Not even a real trend in the commedia sexy all'italiana genre, as these three are the only three films with a nurse/infermiera as the main character. Cavarrone 18:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. This is overcategorisation by shared name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merge This is an example of overcategorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Office suites for Linux. - Splash - tk 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Linux office suite software to Category:Office suites for Linux
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with Linux. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per sister Category:Office suites for Windows. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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: MERGE to Category:Office suites for OS X, but this has been done already, so I'll delete. - Splash - tk 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:OS X office suite software to Category:Office suites for OS X
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with OS X. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The pages have been moved to the proprosed category. -- Glenn ( talk) 16:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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 delete per WP:CSD#C1 and WP:CSD#G7. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Windows office suite software to Category:Office suites for Windows
- Nominator's rationale: Pseudo-English name. "Suite" itself means "software", so there is no need to repeat it. Plus, the articles in this category are not about suites that come with Windows. Codename Lisa ( talk) 12:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The pages have been moved to the proprosed category. --
Glenn (
talk)
16:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is long established that you shouldn't empty out a category while it is at CFD.
...William
12:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Glenn is the original creator and sole contributor, so WP:SNOW. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 13:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It is long established that you shouldn't empty out a category while it is at CFD.
...William
12:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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. The debate does not seem to converge in any direction on any of the topics that are raised for discussion. - Splash - tk 22:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jewish-Christian debate to Category:Christian–Jewish debate
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:DASH and alphabetizing. I always go with alphabetical order for neutrality's sake so as to not prejudice article titles. Alternate proposal: Upmerge into more generic Christian–Jewish categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral on order, since Judaism came first don't see that alphabet has to be applied, but don't have a strong opinion. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose alternative "Upmerge"(?) The suggestion to "upmerge" presumably effectively means "delete" and instead add Category:Christianity and Judaism and Category:Jewish apologetics to all 12 articles. Can't see that helps anyone. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Question. What is this category for? There is no head article, but the contents suggest that it it relates to a set of theological debates in the middle ages and earlier. However the title allows a massively broader scope.
Can anyone clarify? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. I'd like to see an adjective or additional noun here, Jews and Christians debate what? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral The category name could be changed to Category:Christian–Jewish debate as suggested, since I believe it refers to all sorts of theological disputations between Western Christians (Roman Catholics) and Jews that occurred throught the Middle Ages, both early and later Middle Ages, up to the 16th century. All these disputations occurred at the initiative of the Christian majority's leaders (Church Bishops) in an attempt to convert the Jewish minority to Christianity and to possibly erase the "Jewish question" in medieval Jewish society. warshy (¥¥) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Since these articles are on multiple debates, should not the category be using debates? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would really call it "Christian-Jewish Disputations." warshy (¥¥) 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes "disputations" is better, and a period disam is needed. Rename to Category:Christian–Jewish disputations in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Johnbod ( talk) 11:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Terms such as "Judeo-Christian" and " Jewish Christian" are established, and I don't remember hearing comparable phrases in which Christians come before Jews. In my mind, this means that the current name is more natural, more in line with normal English usage, than the proposed new name. Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are correct for things that are common to both religions, and which follow from one to the orher chronologically, as in e.g. "Judeo-Christian ethics" or the like. For these medieval theological disputations we are talking about, I believe they were always initiated by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic church in Christian Europe, and as such the suggestes title "Christian-Jewish Disputations in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages" would still be the best option IMO.
warshy
(¥¥)
15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't attempting to address anything except the order of the words; I'm not entering into the question of whether it should be "debate" or "disputations in..." or anything else. Sorry for not being clear enough — looking at it now, 9 hours after making it, I can see why my comment didn't reflect my meaning. Nyttend ( talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are correct for things that are common to both religions, and which follow from one to the orher chronologically, as in e.g. "Judeo-Christian ethics" or the like. For these medieval theological disputations we are talking about, I believe they were always initiated by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Catholic church in Christian Europe, and as such the suggestes title "Christian-Jewish Disputations in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages" would still be the best option IMO.
warshy
(¥¥)
15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rename To put Christian first, since these were initiated by Christian. Jewish Christians have no relevance here, since they are like Roman Christians, English Christians etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 RESULT. Normally, this would get relisted by closing admin. However the CfD backlog is large at the moment, so I will leave it to the nominator (or others) if they consider this matter still needing assistance of CfD after the passage of time since the nomination. - Splash - tk 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Walt Disney movie posters to Category:Disney animated features posters
- Nominator's rationale: I believe this category rename would better reflect the cat's parameters per its description as well as that of the main article List of Disney theatrical animated features, and the parent category Category:Disney animated features canon. However, if others have a better suggestion, that's fine, too. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What about Walt Disney film posters? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The use of "Walt" doesn't seem to be necessary in these Disney film cats. As for the rest of the name, I was just trying to reflect the theatrical features focus of the existing category, which does not include certain TV or direct to video films, apparently. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.