- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also propose renaming Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by fog to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving fog
- Nominator's rationale: Very few incidents are caused by fog but there are ones involving fog. This was discussed at a WikiProject talk page here [1]. ...William 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - fog is a factor in accidents but not itself a cause. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- not sure Ice was a factor in many accidents as well, but if you read the articles, the "cause" is often "pilot error" or "inadequate maintenance" or other things like that. If we rename this one, we should rename all of them to be "involving".-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the question is how do we clearly state the purpose of the category. Category:Airliner accidents and incidents where fog was a factor is probably the most clear statement but is it too long and is this really what the purpose of the category is? I'm not convinced that a decision here would affect other related categories. This could lead to a one by one review, but most will probably not change, at least in my opinion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, per my rationale at WT:AV. Mjroots ( talk) 20:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - makes sense and is more accurate. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Many accidents/incidents involve many contributory factors (mechanical failure, crew error, weather, poor design etc) and categorization shouldn't be used to list all the factors that may have contributed. Thus, if we have "involving" in a category name there should be category text defining the degree of involvement needed for inclusion in the category. DexDor ( talk) 13:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Question Are "factors" typically stated in FAA reports (for the US) and/or comparable reports for other countries? If so, we could require this category to contain just incidents that are reported as having a fog factor. If not, I have no comment. Nyttend ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 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: procedural close as duplicate nomination, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#Category:Lexx planets. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
14:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Lexx planets to Category:Fictional planets
- Reason: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article, Lexx ran from 1997-2002. It is unlikely that there are any other notable settings like this. 108.216.20.135 ( talk) 17:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge, obviously right. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator. ...William 11:05, 16 March 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, without prejudice to a new nomination for
Category:County judges in Kentucky, if desired.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:New Jersey County Executives to Category:County executives in New Jersey
- Category:Texas County Judges to Category:County judges in Texas
- Category:Oregon county judges to Category:County judges in Oregon
- Category:Kentucky county judges to Category:County judges in Kentucky
- Category:Presidents of Parishes in Louisiana to Category:Presidents of parishes in Louisiana
- Nominator's rationale: unnecessary capitalization / consistent with others Greg Bard ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment "County Judge" is the title of the head county executive in Texas counties. Perhaps Category:County Judges in Texas to match naming conventions, but to also preserve the proper capitalization of the title. — 68.206.106.139 ( talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The capitalization of "judge" in that context only occurs when it refers to a particular person :"County Judge John Smith." In this context, no capitalization is the correct form. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This will make these categories consistent with other categories in Category:County executives in the United States. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) But let's not do Kentucky yet, per discussion below. -- Orlady ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Orlady. ...William 16:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Renames to match title of parent article in a more consistent format. Alansohn ( talk) 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I think there should be two categories for Kentucky. County judge was an office until a major constitutional revision in 1975 which created a new office, County Judge/Executive, which is unique to Kentucky. County judge, as I understand, was a judicial office, but the county judge/executive is an executive office with little or no judicial authority. Some details here. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I am working on making the distinction clear between judicial "county judges" and executive "county judges."
Greg Bard (
talk)
15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Great. If I can be of assistance, you know where to find me. The constitutional revision was before my time, but I should have access to plenty of resources on it.
Acdixon (
talk ·
contribs)
16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The peculiarities of the nomenclature in Kentucky are similar to the situation that led to the Tennessee category being named Category:Heads of county government in Tennessee. (Tennessee used to call these people county judges, then started calling them county executives in some counties and county mayors in others, and now -- by decree of the state legislature -- has county mayors in all counties, except a couple that managed to be get the legislature to let them continue to have county executives.) -- Orlady ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Great. If I can be of assistance, you know where to find me. The constitutional revision was before my time, but I should have access to plenty of resources on it.
Acdixon (
talk ·
contribs)
16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I am working on making the distinction clear between judicial "county judges" and executive "county judges."
Greg Bard (
talk)
15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support except for Kentucky. Looks like a simple issue of correcting the naming for LA, NJ, OR, and TX. The issue Acdixon raises makes me think that it's a unique case that shouldn't be resolved here. Let's make a "no consensus" decision on Kentucky and immediately create a new CFD in which we could discuss whether to rename, split, keep, or something else. Nyttend ( talk) 03:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - If anything, we should revert to the more general term, as there is no question that within the same state that calls the executive office "judges" or "mayor", they are still both "County executives." That is the way to resolve it, by using the more general term that applies to both, rather than a long named category with "x and y in state". Greg Bard ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a proposal I can support. Nyttend ( talk) 21:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd also be fine with that. The name isn't really as important as the function. Kentucky would also need a "county judge" category for folks who held the (now defunct) judicial office, though. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I have addressed the main concerns expressed here by creating Category:County judges in the United States with a clear category description, as well clarifying the category description of Category:County executives in the United States. Greg Bard ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't see why everything in the nominated category can't simply sit in the parent category, Category:Workers' Party of Korea. The parent category is not overly full or cluttered, and a category named after a party naturally contains articles and subcategories about the organization of that party. I can't find a parallel "Organization of PARTYX" example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose A parallel is Category:Structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge – the parent category has 1 article and 1 other subcat, so this is wholly redundant. Oculi ( talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge, there is no need for this, unlike the Soviet one where the parent has lots of other content. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge unless someone can seriously show how this will ever be adequately populated. USSR was an enormous place, so that multiple categories may be useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also propose renaming Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by fog to Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving fog
- Nominator's rationale: Very few incidents are caused by fog but there are ones involving fog. This was discussed at a WikiProject talk page here [1]. ...William 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - fog is a factor in accidents but not itself a cause. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- not sure Ice was a factor in many accidents as well, but if you read the articles, the "cause" is often "pilot error" or "inadequate maintenance" or other things like that. If we rename this one, we should rename all of them to be "involving".-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the question is how do we clearly state the purpose of the category. Category:Airliner accidents and incidents where fog was a factor is probably the most clear statement but is it too long and is this really what the purpose of the category is? I'm not convinced that a decision here would affect other related categories. This could lead to a one by one review, but most will probably not change, at least in my opinion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support, per my rationale at WT:AV. Mjroots ( talk) 20:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support - makes sense and is more accurate. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Many accidents/incidents involve many contributory factors (mechanical failure, crew error, weather, poor design etc) and categorization shouldn't be used to list all the factors that may have contributed. Thus, if we have "involving" in a category name there should be category text defining the degree of involvement needed for inclusion in the category. DexDor ( talk) 13:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Question Are "factors" typically stated in FAA reports (for the US) and/or comparable reports for other countries? If so, we could require this category to contain just incidents that are reported as having a fog factor. If not, I have no comment. Nyttend ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 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: procedural close as duplicate nomination, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#Category:Lexx planets. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
14:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Lexx planets to Category:Fictional planets
- Reason: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article, Lexx ran from 1997-2002. It is unlikely that there are any other notable settings like this. 108.216.20.135 ( talk) 17:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge, obviously right. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator. ...William 11:05, 16 March 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, without prejudice to a new nomination for
Category:County judges in Kentucky, if desired.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:New Jersey County Executives to Category:County executives in New Jersey
- Category:Texas County Judges to Category:County judges in Texas
- Category:Oregon county judges to Category:County judges in Oregon
- Category:Kentucky county judges to Category:County judges in Kentucky
- Category:Presidents of Parishes in Louisiana to Category:Presidents of parishes in Louisiana
- Nominator's rationale: unnecessary capitalization / consistent with others Greg Bard ( talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment "County Judge" is the title of the head county executive in Texas counties. Perhaps Category:County Judges in Texas to match naming conventions, but to also preserve the proper capitalization of the title. — 68.206.106.139 ( talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- The capitalization of "judge" in that context only occurs when it refers to a particular person :"County Judge John Smith." In this context, no capitalization is the correct form. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This will make these categories consistent with other categories in Category:County executives in the United States. -- Orlady ( talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) But let's not do Kentucky yet, per discussion below. -- Orlady ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Orlady. ...William 16:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Renames to match title of parent article in a more consistent format. Alansohn ( talk) 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I think there should be two categories for Kentucky. County judge was an office until a major constitutional revision in 1975 which created a new office, County Judge/Executive, which is unique to Kentucky. County judge, as I understand, was a judicial office, but the county judge/executive is an executive office with little or no judicial authority. Some details here. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I am working on making the distinction clear between judicial "county judges" and executive "county judges."
Greg Bard (
talk)
15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Great. If I can be of assistance, you know where to find me. The constitutional revision was before my time, but I should have access to plenty of resources on it.
Acdixon (
talk ·
contribs)
16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The peculiarities of the nomenclature in Kentucky are similar to the situation that led to the Tennessee category being named Category:Heads of county government in Tennessee. (Tennessee used to call these people county judges, then started calling them county executives in some counties and county mayors in others, and now -- by decree of the state legislature -- has county mayors in all counties, except a couple that managed to be get the legislature to let them continue to have county executives.) -- Orlady ( talk) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Great. If I can be of assistance, you know where to find me. The constitutional revision was before my time, but I should have access to plenty of resources on it.
Acdixon (
talk ·
contribs)
16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I am working on making the distinction clear between judicial "county judges" and executive "county judges."
Greg Bard (
talk)
15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support except for Kentucky. Looks like a simple issue of correcting the naming for LA, NJ, OR, and TX. The issue Acdixon raises makes me think that it's a unique case that shouldn't be resolved here. Let's make a "no consensus" decision on Kentucky and immediately create a new CFD in which we could discuss whether to rename, split, keep, or something else. Nyttend ( talk) 03:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - If anything, we should revert to the more general term, as there is no question that within the same state that calls the executive office "judges" or "mayor", they are still both "County executives." That is the way to resolve it, by using the more general term that applies to both, rather than a long named category with "x and y in state". Greg Bard ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a proposal I can support. Nyttend ( talk) 21:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd also be fine with that. The name isn't really as important as the function. Kentucky would also need a "county judge" category for folks who held the (now defunct) judicial office, though. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I have addressed the main concerns expressed here by creating Category:County judges in the United States with a clear category description, as well clarifying the category description of Category:County executives in the United States. Greg Bard ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't see why everything in the nominated category can't simply sit in the parent category, Category:Workers' Party of Korea. The parent category is not overly full or cluttered, and a category named after a party naturally contains articles and subcategories about the organization of that party. I can't find a parallel "Organization of PARTYX" example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose A parallel is Category:Structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge – the parent category has 1 article and 1 other subcat, so this is wholly redundant. Oculi ( talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge, there is no need for this, unlike the Soviet one where the parent has lots of other content. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge unless someone can seriously show how this will ever be adequately populated. USSR was an enormous place, so that multiple categories may be useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:21, 16 March 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.