Category:Industrial relations education 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:rename and merge subcat, as described in the alternative proposal. ~
Rob13Talk 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge in the spirit of
WP:SMALLCAT, there is no point in having a container category that contains only one child category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Altrernative - Rename to
Category:Industrial relations education and merge in the US subcat. This is not a hopelessly small category: the British TUC has (or had) a college for training union officials, which would fit my target.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, let's give it a try.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:10, 23 October 2016 (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:Professorships in industrial relations
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 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:Television series created by Barbara Hall (TV producer)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – it is much more straightforward simply to use the same format as the article rather than agonising over whether any other Barbara Halls might have created TV series.
Oculi (
talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Not sure why there'd be any agony over it. A category redirect from the current title should solve any confusion. --
Tavix(
talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Renaming the other way (to match the article) satisfies the speedy criterion C2D:
WP:CFDS. Eg
Category:Compositions_by_Don_Davis is at present a speedy in exactly the opposite direction. One thinks something is at last sorted out and then confusion is introduced.
Oculi (
talk) 11:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Don Davis is a different situation. There are several Don Davis' who worked in that field, so the disambiguator is necessary there. In this case, you're not going to see "Television series created by Barbara Hall" and think "Hmm, I wonder if these series were created by the politician, the crossword puzzle editor, or the TV producer." It's obvious by the context that we're referring to the TV producer. There's no need to be redundant with the additional disambiguator at the end. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
REname -- While it is desirable for categories to match articles.
Barbara Hall is a dabpage, also leading to a Canadian politician and a crossword editor, neither of whom is likely to have created TV series. Accordingly an exception can be made and the fact that this relates to
Barbara Hall (TV producer) can be relegated to the headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per the reasons covered by Peterkingiron.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Do not rename. I can see the nominator's point that this is not a big deal, but I do prefer to keep names within categories the same as the corresponding article name. This seems to be the general practice, even when the disambiguator does not serve to provide necessary disambiguation in the category the same way that it functions in article space. And Oculi is correct that this is the type of change (adding the disambiguator to the category) that would be routinely approved at
WP:CFDS.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: stale discussion from
September 7, which is deadlocked but unlikely to attract any new input there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Bearcat (
talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. For clarity's sake, a category name should always match the dab level of its associated head article. And furthermore, while in this particular instance it happens to be true that the one who's dabbed as a TV producer is the only one who actually created television series, it's not something that's automatically self-evident without reading the articles first to be sure. Politicians can and do create television programs as well — see Ford Nation, see
Al Gore's second post-Florida-recount career as a film producer and owner of a television channel — so the fact that
Barbara Hall (politician)'s notability derives primarily from politics doesn't preclude her also having created television programs. (And there are 35 million Canadians who would see the undisambiguated name "Barbara Hall" and jump straight to "the former mayor of Toronto created television series? Whaaaaaaat?" — which certainly doesn't make her
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC worldwide, but that's still a lot of readers who would get the wrong impression.) Cartoonists can create television programs, which should be especially obvious given that we're currently living in a time when prime-time programming on the US networks is crammed to overflowing with adaptations of comic books. The crossword editor worked as a journalist before taking the crossword job, so nothing precludes her from having been the creator of a newsmagazine show or a talk/interview series — and even the crossword job doesn't inherently rule out participating in the creation of a word-based game show like Scrabble or Boggle or Wheel of Fortune. And because it's not at all abnormal for a famous person to use a different name when they're delving into a field other than their primary notability domain (e.g. a famous actor using an alternate stage name when he decides to dabble in music, a journalist using a pen name when she writes a novel, etc.), the category name doesn't actually preclude
Barbara Feldon, née Hall, from being included in the "who is this referring to?" mix either. The fact that none of the other Barbara Halls actually did create television series doesn't make it inherently obvious to the uninitiated that none of them could have — which is why the category name still needs to be as specific as possible.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment a related nomination, however for renaming the other way around, is
here. Similar to this discussion, the votes are mixed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:25, 18 October 2016 (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:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition
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.
Nominator's rationale: After creating and populating the category, I realised (a bit too late) that most articles use the term monastery. Now I'm not quite sure what the distinction between Buddhist temple and monastery is, as they all refer to wat in Thai. I've placed the category under both
Category:Theravada Buddhist temples and
Category:Theravada Buddhist monasteries (via
Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples), since I don't think it's a distinction worth making at this level, but the category name could benefit from following the common term used by member articles.
Paul_012 (
talk) 14:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The word "monastery" is normally used as a home of a community of monks or nuns and the articles (especially outside Thailand) refer to this phenomenon indeed. I'm not sure if these buildings are used as temples and monasteries at the same time though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree with the modificatin suggestion
JarrahTree 08:26, 30 October 2016 (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:Warrants issued in Hong Kong Stock Exchange
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overategorization. Most of the entry in the cat already covered by
Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The cat was contained Euro and Australian dollars (which i removed as they were not mentioned in the main article they were traded (or have derivatives and warrants) in HK Stock Exchange also). If the cat want to refer to shares subscription warrants, they must be already covered by Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. As well as it is not notable to categorize company's secondly financial instruments.
Matthew_hktc 13:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support also per
WP:NONDEF, "warrant" is not a defining characteristic of a company.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (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:Front Palaces
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Front Palace" is a royal title, and this category contains biographical articles of people who once held that title. However, the current name might be confusing to those unfamiliar with the title. I'm open to alternative suggestions.
Paul_012 (
talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - According to the article the title refers to the "second king" of Thailand, until replaced by "Crown Prince" in the 19th century. It refer both to the holder of the title and his residence. There were also "Rear Palaces" who were the "third king". One answer might be to merge to
Category:Crown Prince of Thailand, on the basis that this is essentially the same office under a different name. The headnote would need to explain the various titles employed. I would suggest that the category should be limited to crown princes who did not (or have not yet) succeeded, so that the category is not cluttered with bios of kings.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I'd oppose grouping the historical post and the modern title under the same category, as they're much more different than that. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support original nomination to avoid confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I understand the rationale, but I don't see why we should rename something just because the name is unfamiliar or confusing unless there is a plausible chance that the name could be confused as meaning something else that would be incorrect. I don't see that here – what are we worried that people will think "Front Palaces" means? I think it's far more likely that if a person is confused by the name, they will just be confused and not know what to think rather than be under a misapprehension of meaning. In such cases, clicking on
Front Palace is an easy solution for the reader.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It could be confused with the physical buildings that the persons with the Front Palace title resided in, but granted, we don't have separate articles for those on Wikipedia yet. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
PS I'm okay with leaving this as is until the need arises for disambiguation. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (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:Iron mines in Australia
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.
Support. To be honest, I'm not even sure this is strictly a "local usage" issue per se — "iron ore mine" actually appears to be the standard usage almost everywhere as far as I can tell. If I Google the phrase "iron mine", even enclosed in quotes, it seems to appear that way only in reference to video game mining in Minecraft or Shipwrecked — on the relatively rare occasion that a real-world iron mine shows up in the search results at all, it invariably uses the phrase "iron ore mine" in the body text. I'm accordingly inclined to believe that the whole tree should be similarly renamed.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, I concur with Bearcat, in that a discussion should be had about amending/renaming the whole tree.
Dan arndt (
talk) 02:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support obviously. Even Minecraft knows that you have to smelt the iron ore before it becomes iron. --
99of9 (
talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, technically that's always true of any metal — but in actual usage, we do tend to just say "nickel mine" instead of "nickel ore mine", "copper mine" instead of "copper ore mine" and "gold mine" instead of "gold ore mine", yet "iron ore mine" instead of "iron mine".
Bearcat (
talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. "
Iron ores are rocks and minerals from which metallic iron can be economically extracted."
Iron#Occurrence: "Metallic or native iron is rarely found on the surface of the Earth because it tends to oxidize, but its oxides are pervasive and represent the primary ores." --
Scott DavisTalk 06:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support This is definitely the term used in Australia.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 10:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- Iron does not occur on the earth's surface as a native metal.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support As a guy who lives in Australia, I can say that we call it "iron ore". The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk) 07:50, 24 October 2016 (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:Industrial relations education 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:rename and merge subcat, as described in the alternative proposal. ~
Rob13Talk 07:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge in the spirit of
WP:SMALLCAT, there is no point in having a container category that contains only one child category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Altrernative - Rename to
Category:Industrial relations education and merge in the US subcat. This is not a hopelessly small category: the British TUC has (or had) a college for training union officials, which would fit my target.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, let's give it a try.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:10, 23 October 2016 (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:Professorships in industrial relations
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 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:Television series created by Barbara Hall (TV producer)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – it is much more straightforward simply to use the same format as the article rather than agonising over whether any other Barbara Halls might have created TV series.
Oculi (
talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Not sure why there'd be any agony over it. A category redirect from the current title should solve any confusion. --
Tavix(
talk) 23:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Renaming the other way (to match the article) satisfies the speedy criterion C2D:
WP:CFDS. Eg
Category:Compositions_by_Don_Davis is at present a speedy in exactly the opposite direction. One thinks something is at last sorted out and then confusion is introduced.
Oculi (
talk) 11:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Don Davis is a different situation. There are several Don Davis' who worked in that field, so the disambiguator is necessary there. In this case, you're not going to see "Television series created by Barbara Hall" and think "Hmm, I wonder if these series were created by the politician, the crossword puzzle editor, or the TV producer." It's obvious by the context that we're referring to the TV producer. There's no need to be redundant with the additional disambiguator at the end. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
REname -- While it is desirable for categories to match articles.
Barbara Hall is a dabpage, also leading to a Canadian politician and a crossword editor, neither of whom is likely to have created TV series. Accordingly an exception can be made and the fact that this relates to
Barbara Hall (TV producer) can be relegated to the headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per the reasons covered by Peterkingiron.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Do not rename. I can see the nominator's point that this is not a big deal, but I do prefer to keep names within categories the same as the corresponding article name. This seems to be the general practice, even when the disambiguator does not serve to provide necessary disambiguation in the category the same way that it functions in article space. And Oculi is correct that this is the type of change (adding the disambiguator to the category) that would be routinely approved at
WP:CFDS.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: stale discussion from
September 7, which is deadlocked but unlikely to attract any new input there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Bearcat (
talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. For clarity's sake, a category name should always match the dab level of its associated head article. And furthermore, while in this particular instance it happens to be true that the one who's dabbed as a TV producer is the only one who actually created television series, it's not something that's automatically self-evident without reading the articles first to be sure. Politicians can and do create television programs as well — see Ford Nation, see
Al Gore's second post-Florida-recount career as a film producer and owner of a television channel — so the fact that
Barbara Hall (politician)'s notability derives primarily from politics doesn't preclude her also having created television programs. (And there are 35 million Canadians who would see the undisambiguated name "Barbara Hall" and jump straight to "the former mayor of Toronto created television series? Whaaaaaaat?" — which certainly doesn't make her
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC worldwide, but that's still a lot of readers who would get the wrong impression.) Cartoonists can create television programs, which should be especially obvious given that we're currently living in a time when prime-time programming on the US networks is crammed to overflowing with adaptations of comic books. The crossword editor worked as a journalist before taking the crossword job, so nothing precludes her from having been the creator of a newsmagazine show or a talk/interview series — and even the crossword job doesn't inherently rule out participating in the creation of a word-based game show like Scrabble or Boggle or Wheel of Fortune. And because it's not at all abnormal for a famous person to use a different name when they're delving into a field other than their primary notability domain (e.g. a famous actor using an alternate stage name when he decides to dabble in music, a journalist using a pen name when she writes a novel, etc.), the category name doesn't actually preclude
Barbara Feldon, née Hall, from being included in the "who is this referring to?" mix either. The fact that none of the other Barbara Halls actually did create television series doesn't make it inherently obvious to the uninitiated that none of them could have — which is why the category name still needs to be as specific as possible.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment a related nomination, however for renaming the other way around, is
here. Similar to this discussion, the votes are mixed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:25, 18 October 2016 (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:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition
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.
Nominator's rationale: After creating and populating the category, I realised (a bit too late) that most articles use the term monastery. Now I'm not quite sure what the distinction between Buddhist temple and monastery is, as they all refer to wat in Thai. I've placed the category under both
Category:Theravada Buddhist temples and
Category:Theravada Buddhist monasteries (via
Category:Thai Theravada Buddhist temples), since I don't think it's a distinction worth making at this level, but the category name could benefit from following the common term used by member articles.
Paul_012 (
talk) 14:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The word "monastery" is normally used as a home of a community of monks or nuns and the articles (especially outside Thailand) refer to this phenomenon indeed. I'm not sure if these buildings are used as temples and monasteries at the same time though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Seems like a reasonable suggestion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree with the modificatin suggestion
JarrahTree 08:26, 30 October 2016 (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:Warrants issued in Hong Kong Stock Exchange
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overategorization. Most of the entry in the cat already covered by
Category:Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The cat was contained Euro and Australian dollars (which i removed as they were not mentioned in the main article they were traded (or have derivatives and warrants) in HK Stock Exchange also). If the cat want to refer to shares subscription warrants, they must be already covered by Companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. As well as it is not notable to categorize company's secondly financial instruments.
Matthew_hktc 13:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support also per
WP:NONDEF, "warrant" is not a defining characteristic of a company.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (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:Front Palaces
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. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Front Palace" is a royal title, and this category contains biographical articles of people who once held that title. However, the current name might be confusing to those unfamiliar with the title. I'm open to alternative suggestions.
Paul_012 (
talk) 10:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - According to the article the title refers to the "second king" of Thailand, until replaced by "Crown Prince" in the 19th century. It refer both to the holder of the title and his residence. There were also "Rear Palaces" who were the "third king". One answer might be to merge to
Category:Crown Prince of Thailand, on the basis that this is essentially the same office under a different name. The headnote would need to explain the various titles employed. I would suggest that the category should be limited to crown princes who did not (or have not yet) succeeded, so that the category is not cluttered with bios of kings.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I'd oppose grouping the historical post and the modern title under the same category, as they're much more different than that. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support original nomination to avoid confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I understand the rationale, but I don't see why we should rename something just because the name is unfamiliar or confusing unless there is a plausible chance that the name could be confused as meaning something else that would be incorrect. I don't see that here – what are we worried that people will think "Front Palaces" means? I think it's far more likely that if a person is confused by the name, they will just be confused and not know what to think rather than be under a misapprehension of meaning. In such cases, clicking on
Front Palace is an easy solution for the reader.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It could be confused with the physical buildings that the persons with the Front Palace title resided in, but granted, we don't have separate articles for those on Wikipedia yet. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
PS I'm okay with leaving this as is until the need arises for disambiguation. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (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:Iron mines in Australia
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.
Support. To be honest, I'm not even sure this is strictly a "local usage" issue per se — "iron ore mine" actually appears to be the standard usage almost everywhere as far as I can tell. If I Google the phrase "iron mine", even enclosed in quotes, it seems to appear that way only in reference to video game mining in Minecraft or Shipwrecked — on the relatively rare occasion that a real-world iron mine shows up in the search results at all, it invariably uses the phrase "iron ore mine" in the body text. I'm accordingly inclined to believe that the whole tree should be similarly renamed.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, I concur with Bearcat, in that a discussion should be had about amending/renaming the whole tree.
Dan arndt (
talk) 02:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support obviously. Even Minecraft knows that you have to smelt the iron ore before it becomes iron. --
99of9 (
talk) 06:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, technically that's always true of any metal — but in actual usage, we do tend to just say "nickel mine" instead of "nickel ore mine", "copper mine" instead of "copper ore mine" and "gold mine" instead of "gold ore mine", yet "iron ore mine" instead of "iron mine".
Bearcat (
talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. "
Iron ores are rocks and minerals from which metallic iron can be economically extracted."
Iron#Occurrence: "Metallic or native iron is rarely found on the surface of the Earth because it tends to oxidize, but its oxides are pervasive and represent the primary ores." --
Scott DavisTalk 06:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support This is definitely the term used in Australia.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 10:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- Iron does not occur on the earth's surface as a native metal.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Support As a guy who lives in Australia, I can say that we call it "iron ore". The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk) 07:50, 24 October 2016 (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.