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.
Oppose. Casting (disambiguation) shows that the term "casting" has many other non-trivial meanings. Regardless of whether the manufacturing process is taken as the primary topic in article space, retaining the disambiguator in the category name helps to avoid miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "casting" is what a casting director does when casting for a play, television or film. ; Casting is what a fisherman does with a fishing pole. Clearly many things can be categorized here having nothing to do with cast iron, die cast, etc. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Comment. Duplicate is pushing it for a category created today. Adding/moving categories from the former to populate the latter to show a problem is someone problematic itself. As to the nomination, I'm not sure at this time which way to go, but additional moving of articles should stop while this is being discussed. Note that the existing category contains a very well developed set of subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy rename the head article is at Footbridge. If this nom passes, you can do a speedy rename on all the subcats. Perhaps a notice should be placed at the head of each category, to ask people to stop moving things into/out of these cats pending this CfD. --KarlB (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename Instead, delete Category:Footbridges as unneeded. Change the article name to Pedestrian bridge, reversing the current re-direct. Reading the articles find the term most used is 'pedestrain bridge', not 'footbridge'. There is also the entire category structure Category:Pedestrian infrastructure of which Category:Pedestrian bridges is but one part; there is no such structure for 'footbridges'. There is no good reason to change this. 'Pedestrian bridge' seems like is it the name of art; 'footbridge' is rather informal and old-fashioned. Hmains (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment google book search and google scholar both seem to indicate a preference for footbridge. renaming the other sub-cats is not a big deal. i think given the article has been at footbridge for 7 years, that suggests consensus on that as a name. --KarlB (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. If you read footbridge, cyclists, animal traffic and horse riders, rather than vehicular traffic are considered valid traffic on foot bridges. This would actually argue against either of the above names making the longstanding name the most appropriate. Clearly something needs to be done with the main article. Maybe a split into bridges that prohibit motorized vehicles and true foot bridges like a rope bridge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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 without prejudice to breaking out by country and, if needed once enough by-country categories are created, by continent. Omce there are enough. That is not now.. The BushrangerOne ping only03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge Bot this category and the parent category are still very small so the continental subcategorization is more annoying than helpful. Of course I expect that at some point in the future we will be happy to create this category once again but right now, we're better off without it. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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 merge - the term "judiciary" considered to be ambiguous. - jc3706:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment At least one of the judiciary (Sweden) articles states "The judicial system of Sweden consists of the law of Sweden and a number of government agencies tasked with upholding security and rule of law within the country. The activities of these agencies include police and law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and prisons and other correctional services". If this is true, it is certainly not so in other countries. In the US, for example, the judiciary/court system would never be thought of as including police and law enforcement, prosecution, and prisons and other correctional services. These are part of the executive branch of the government, not the judicial. All are part of the 'justice system', as are the 'judiciary/courts'. Is there other confusion here also? Hmains (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that only a few countries (Finland & Iran) share the Swedish scenario (where they include the law enforcement/prison as part of their "judicial system". In any case, I think those articles can appropriately be categorized under one category. ќמшמφטтгמtorque03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. The term "judiciary" can be use to refer collectively either to judges, or to the whole court system (aka judicial system). The ambiguity of the term "judiciary" makes it a poor choice for a category name, but the distinction between judges and the judicial system should be retained. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the issue of distinction btwn judges and judicial system arises here. There is already a separate category for judges: Category:Judges. But/And if we look at most, if not all, the related articles (judiciaries of - , judicial system of -, court system of-) you can't escape defining the role, functions, names, types, etc of the judges sitting in the courts of those countries. ќמшמφטтгמtorque03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a reverse merger. "Court systems" is unambiguous, but "judiciaries" has two meanings, so let's use the unambiguous terms. --11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
merge per nom. given the category Category:Judges and what will be the contents of these categories, Judiciary is a better word. Court system implies just the relationship between courts, and does not seem inclusive of the judges or other institutions of the justice system. I disagree that the term will be ambiguous in this case. --KarlB (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
because we're using the category to cover both meanings. (even though judges are a sub-cat, they are still within) --KarlB (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's much better to use the term "court systems" which only has the broad meaning, rather than "judiciary" which has both the broad and the narrow meaning. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I would regard "judiciaries" as relating to judges, and court systems as wider, being concerned with the whole system of the courts of law. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment see this: [9] - in the article space, these are all seen as synonyms. No reason to differentiate in the category space. merge this! --KarlB (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They are not synonmyms, because while "judiciary" may refer to either judges collectively (in UK usage) or court systems generally (US usage), "court systems" does not carry the narrower meaning. If categories are ambiguous, miscategorisation results, and the way to avoid ambiguity here is by using "court systems". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source"?? I've seen you cite wikipedia in numerous debates; what wikipedia is useful for here is seeing whether the consensus of other editors has decided that 'court systems' and judiciary' and 'judicial systems' are somehow different or that somehow confusion is possible. In this case, consensus says they are the same; no-one has written a separate article on 'court systems'. The lead article is at 'judiciary', so until that changes to 'court systems', we should do this merge as proposed. If you think judiciary should be renamed court systems, I'd suggest taking it up at Talk:Judiciary, rather than impeding consensus on this merge which is just bringing things in line with the article space. (just found this gem, from 2006 there: "I'm no lawyer, but the categories Category:Judiciaries and Category:Court systems by country look like a duplicated mess to me. Someone easily confused (?) might have expected to find a more logical structure, like: branches of national government; court systems; and judges. I've made a few tweaks at the moment, and I'm wondering about proposing the merger of court systems into judiciaries to help sort out the differences between the two. Any views??--Mereda 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)" KarlB (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. I think we want to think through this. In the United States there is the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch in the Federal government. The Court system is a different branch. Is Judiciary and court system synonymous? I am not sure, but we should be sure before we act on this idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply as far as I can tell, yes. For an example, see here: [10] The title of the website is 'Virginia's Judicial System'; then: "Our aim is to assure that disputes are resolved justly, promptly, and economically through a court system unified in its structures and administration." Then their annual report is called "2011 State of the Judiciary Address"; and if you read that, you will see that they use 'judiciary' to refer to the whole system. So at least for virginia, the three are synonyms; you can check other states but in my research there didn't appear to be a big difference between them. There are certainly some wp:engvar issues at stake here, but it doesn't mean that some how these are different; and if it turns out for one country that they are, they can always be re-separated.--KarlB (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Justice Department is not part of the judiciary or court systems. As you say, they are part of the executive branch. They are basically lawyers for the government conducting civil cases for and on behalf of the government, as well as criminal prosecution and law enforcement (eg FBI, DEA, etc). There are already separate categories for this: Category:Justice ministries, Category:Prosecution. ќמшמφטтгמtorque02:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the idea of three branches of government was invented by James Madison and maybe a few others at the Constitutional Convention. I am pretty sure it is only somewhat relevant even in previous American law. In Britain, there is at best two branches of government, yet the House of Lords is the highest judicial body, so there is not total sepearation of the courts from the judiciary. Outside the federal level in the United States, there have been times and places where the judicial and the executive was merged. Nauvoo, Illinois under Joseph Smith at least had a personal merger of all three branches of government. The executive and legislative is regularly merged on the local level. The Massachusetts General Court on the other hand was a legislative body, and Harry S. Truman was the chief executive of Jackson County when he was the county judge. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. I think we should do this merging on a case by case baiss. If we have a specific place where we have judical system and courts categories that cover the same thing, we should merge these. Then after doing that, we can consider if the two head category names are needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. If the various category trees need broadening/branching in the future, that can be considered at that point. - jc3706:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. Constesting IP claimed that Falcon missiles could be a possible source of confusion, but per WP:COMMONNAME those are the Falcon missile family, distinct from the Falcon rockets.
To clarify my position, I would oppose putting in the manufacturer name unless a second family of rockets named Falcon, with a category, and not more commonly referred to as missiles, can be demonstrated as a source of further ambiguity. I strongly believe that the SpaceX Falcon rockets are by far the most common usage of Falcon (rocket family). --W.D.Graham10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if the category name is changed, but... this seems rather shortsighted. With the whole "crystal" idea firmly in mind, I still find it highly unlikely that the Falcon rocket is the only rocket that SpaceX will ever build. If it were an article that we were discussing I wouldn't care one whit, but categories get tough to change very quickly, so I don't think that this is such a great idea. Besides, by my thinking, "SpaceX space launch vehicles" is more consistent with our existing category conventions than any sort of "Falcon (rocket family)" would be... as an "upper level" category, at least. I could certainly see adding a "Falcon (rocket family)" category, as a child of "Category:SpaceX space launch vehicles", at some point down the road. Anyway, I'll ping Wikiproject Spaceflight with a link here. I'm quite willing to go along with whatever group consensus may be. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)03:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, all of the sister subcategories as this is currently arranged are "Foo (rocket family)" categories (just moved from "Foo rockets"), so this stands out like a sore thumb. It needs to be either renamed or, as you say, have a seperate Falcon (rocket family) created. - The BushrangerOne ping only05:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't used to be... But, I mean, that category is what I'm basing my thinking on. The whole idea here was to have "Space launch vehicles of the United States" as a parent to "NASA space vehicles" and "SpaceX space vehicles", plus X * "<US company> space vehicles" eventually (I'm thinking of Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation, United Launch Alliance, Boeing and the others here). Then those categories could be parents to specific rocket articles and rocket family articles and categories. Parent categories tend to gather a lot of clutter (people rely on HotCat or just their memory, and so things end up categorized in Category:NASA all of the time, for example). I haven't been maintaining the NASA category tree recently though, so yea... things are a little disorganized right now. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)21:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. "Rocket" when referring to military equipment has a very specific term; missiles, regardless of their propulsion, are never referred to as "rockets". "Rocket" means a unguided vehicle or a space launch vehicle, "missile" is a guided vehicle. Missiles may be rocket-powered but they are absoultely never called rockets. The AIR-2 Genie is a rocket, the AIM-4 Falcon is a missile; none of the Hughes Falcons were unguided, this, none are rockets. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything rocket powered is a rocket. Military terminology relegates guided rockets to the term "missile", but then an unguided rock thrown by a catapult is also called a "missile", as are bolts from ballista, neither of which are selfpowered. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are more commonly referred to as missiles, and rarely as rockets. The SpaceX rockets are by far the most common use of the term "Falcon" in the context of a family of rockets. --W.D.Graham17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as originally proposed, oppose both alternatives. The SpaceX rockets are the clear primary topic, and the missiles are not a sufficient cause of ambiguity to warrant further disambiguation, at the expense of creating a standardised system. --W.D.Graham06:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of weapons, "rockets" unguided and "missiles" are guided. I am yet to see another familyofrockets called Falcon. --W.D.Graham17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with WD that "in the context of weapons, "rockets" [are] unguided and "missiles" are guided" and you can split it further along the line, after weapons, so it becomes Falcon rocket family (weapons) and Falcon missile family (weapons) although missiles and weapons is reiteration I'd figure.
In the nice things category, a missile is an object directed at a target, a chocolate can be a missile and someones mouth can be the target, generally anything can be a missile if it is propelled towards a target. A rocket spews gas and so forth. A missile can be propelled by your hand or by a rocket, but a rocket cannot be propelled by a missile, and propelling a rocket with your hand will send you to the burns unit at the local hospital.
When readers want to know about the Falcon rocket, I'd say they are looking for their space-x related thingy, so send them to the family of rockets, not missiles, as we say it's the Soyuz, or the Soyuz (rocket), the Proton (rocket) and the lovely R-7 (rocket family). So top level category starts with most common term, as proposed, and across in the military category, you'd pop in the term military or weapon, or just Falcon (NASTY) as you please, the R-7 family illustrates that sort of thing.
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.
