Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 27

1974:, (b) the fact that (as one user objected during the previous CfD) the "(X) presidents" form is clearly not used in several specific cases, and (c) my limited Google spot-checking on several specific instances always indicated that usages of the former significantly outnumbered usages of the latter. And, just to be clear, this CfD is intended to apply only to these above-listed university-president categories, not to alumni or people or any other set of categories. (Also, in a few specific cases like Georgia Tech, which you mentioned, and MIT, there seems to me to be no overwhelming reason to use the full formal name of the university in the category name -- e.g. Virginia Tech's category is a counterexample -- but this should be discussed in a separate CfD at some other time. My proposal just stuck to the existing category names as closely as possible.) -- 1284:

treating them equally. Some fundamentalist Christians have this bizzare idea that Christianity is under more attack than any other religion; Islam is also extremely heavily criticized. Hinduism is much less criticized in the West because it is an Eastern religion, and Buddhism is much the same way (but has the added advantage of being, generally, a much more progressive and less offensive religion than the Abrahamic religions, and far less predisposed to try and teach fundamentalism in schools in the west). Yes, there are articles about other religions, and yes, we do in fact use the word mythology. It would take you five seconds to find these articles, and the fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something...

1208:. I put Noah's Ark way above those ideas, in that it is a myth that is a powerful part of our cultural memory. I don't think it ever was around, but I don't think it is bogus. It is an important allegory, and should always be a part of Judeo-Christian teachings. The search for Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is the height of bogosity. You see, I think myth or mythological is much more positive than you are attributing to me. BTW, why is everyone attempting to read my mind????? Finally, epic may be acceptable, but not sure the meaning fits with this story. 1271:

considered sacred scripture by religions widely practised today, have had elements of them declared to be "mythology"? E.g. Are there any other articles about the miraclulous / supernatural stories and concepts from the Quran, the Buddhist Sutras, etc. that have been proclaimed by Knowledge (XXG) to be "mythology"? To me, it appears more like this one particular miraculous / supernatural story has been singled out for such treatment, for reasons that are unknown to me.

2309:, Merge these two categories as they are redundant. Change the name to the plural form "comics". Comics is more inclusive as it also includes comic strips. Also, I have seen some discussion that "comic book" is an American idiom, so this will be a more universal name. Finally, it helps distinguish this category from a potential category for conventions of comedians. There was 4279:: The template that includes this category is similar in purpose to the unsourced and fact templates. The use of the category is to be able to track down unsourced Color infoboxes and fix or remove them. The intent is that as pages are fixed the occurrence of this category would naturally disappear. Bias disclaimer: I was the one that created this category) 1185:

point, however: "a series of events or body of legend or tradition thought to form the proper subject of an epic." (Note:1 term is fair use). Epic has the sense of "great story" without the contemporary connotation of "bogus" or "false". I'm not tied to epic. Any word or phrase that gets the point across without also having a history of being potential

1240:. While accurate, I think that the new category is much -more- accurate and indicates precisely what belongs in the category, though obviously the people who objected to its categorization as a fictional ship continue to argue over it. This is essentially an attempt to get the word "mythological" off of the 4118:. Sorry to introduce yet another permutation, but manufacturers removes the ambiguity about animals which make fertiliser, and the manufacturers are not necessarily companies: some may be state entities in socialist countries, others may be farmers co-ops or other such entities. --00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 1969:

The main reason to favor renaming is consistency, as the categories are named inconsistently now using both forms, even though the prior CfD was done explicitly in the interest of a consistent form for all the categories. I favor the rename to "presidents of (X)" rather than "(X) presidents" because

1104:

We do not mean myth in the form of something of supernatural origin. This ship is a myth, because it is a widespread story with no supporting documentation, save for a biblical account. There has been no archeological or historical proof of its existence. Hence it is mythological." Other editors have

862:

The article on Noah's Ark is an outstanding source of information on the subject and covers all points of view. However, I get the feeling that the main reason for putting it in the category, or maybe even for the existence of the category itself, is to mock people who believe in the Bible literally;

1297:

bother. Right after I posted that yesterday, I spent two hours making a list of all articles from EVERY modern religion that are mislabeled as "mythology". I found there is actually very uneven application across Knowledge (XXG): some religions like Zoroastrianism escape being stuck with mythology

1184:

This is actually a formal definition of "epic" used as adjective. Miriam-Webster's on-line dictionary hsas: "1. of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; 2. extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope." Definition 3. of epic used as a noun is much more to the

3344:

per nom. I am confident that BHG had considered these carefully - I looked at the 3 persons in the first one, and prelate is not mentioned in any of the 3 articles. I also looked at the English ones and they are just the archbishops and bishops. This adds nothing but confusion to the categorisation

712:

weekend in the United States when doubtless many are away. I'd ask the closing admin to wait the full week, give the other side a chance to come back from vacation and comment, and make sure we have a discussion that includes the most vocal members of all sides so that we can close this matter in a

2341:

I'm not absolutely married to a particular name. Any one of these three is fine with me; what's most important is that they are merged. In choosing what name to use, I tried to follow what was the consensus in the previous (linked) discussion. However, if a new consensus is reached for a different

1118:

and many other editors have claimed is simply a synonym for "bogus". I had intended to be neutral on this issue with the idea that a "myth" could connote a culturally significant or culture-defining narrative, but the repeated use of the term "myth" to connote "falsehood" has convinced me that the

777:

was 100% mythological. However it is not at all clear that it was really a ship. The word ark only means vessel. There is no special reason to think that the ark could be steered, as a ship must or else it would be a barge. On the second thought I will just go ahead and remove the category from

1283:

More seriously... you mean other than every other religion? You know this as well as I. It took me 5 seconds to find Islamic mythology. See also Hindu mythology and Buddhist mythology. As those are the four biggest religions in the world, I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, in fact, we are

625:

Just because the category is currently underpopulated does not mean that there are not many mythological ships that could be put in this category. There are many ships which appear in fables and legends, as well as ships whose dimensions or character indicate that they would be suitable for this

1162:

has a tendency to troll the talk page, antagonizing Christians (particularly biblical literalists). Once again, Orangemarlin has designed his/her wording in order to pick a fight, rather than make a reasoned point. The primary definition of Myth is: "a traditional or legendary story, usually

1270:

made the cat? Looks like Csernica did, unless you are he. 2) "Along with every other one": If this is a case of treating the Judaeo-Christian Bible like other currently-popular religious books (let's avoid blatant pejoratives intended to insult, like "fundie"), can you show what other books

359:

In that event, I wouldn't oppose a rename here without prejudice to re-doing it if and when some global rename is proposed; the issue remains that many lawfirms are global these days so is a lawfirm "of" every nation in which it has a registered office, perhaps, or where general partners are

2601:

per Carlossuarez46. Apart from our general disdain of by-opinion categories, this one shows up the limits of categories without time constraints. Anyone following South African events in the 1980s would have injured themselves laughing at the suggestion that (as this category claims)

3317:

All the Argentine Cardinals on whom there were articles are (or were) also bishops or archbishops. There is no no useful purpose served by maintaining a separate layer of categorisation by country merely to group together two near-identical categories of senior Roman Catholic clergy.

3754:. (Note in the case of an empty category such as this, it is better to merge rather than delete, in case the category is re-populated before the CfD closure is picked up by the bots. If the category is still empty, then the "merge" will amount to deletion, so no harm done). -- 778:

that article and that should take care of the "controversy." Sorry to have to change my vote back to delete. It seems like the category is doing more harm than good if it is a source of contention. Please check out the discussion page of the Ark article. Thanks.

3358:

Particularly as none of the subcategories of English prelates is entirely correct - Archbishops in England can be Welsh or Ugandan. English bishops is a correct subcat but it contains all the Catholic Archbishops in England (not necessarily English) and also

613:- the category is serving exactly the function it supposed to, capturing ships from the mythologies of various cultures. If people are upset that Noah's Ark is included then they should resolve it as a content dispute not as a deletion attempt. 1109:, that Knowledge (XXG) does not express an editorial opinion on the truth or falsity of beliefs, claims, or doctrines. ("None of the views should be...asserted as being the truth.") Accordingly, I would propose renaming the category to a more 3252:, which appears to consist mostly of abbots. I don't now whether it is worth keeping those prelates categories, and while I reckon they would probably be better named as "Fooian religious leaders", that is best left to a separate discussion 1113:

and hence Knowledge (XXG)-appropriate term such as "epic ships" or similar (perhaps "ships in religion") that carries the idea of being the subject of culturally significant narratives without having the baggage accompanying a word that

2135:; it was clearly a mistake. In fact, this ambiguity in the "(X) presidents" category names for some universities (the ones with states or countries in their names) is an additional good reason to favor the "Presidents of (X)" form. -- 339:

uses "Organisations based in Foo". There might be a case for standardising on one form or the other, but that would require a huge group nomination, and for now it seems better to use the existing convention of "Law firms of Foo".

889:

be an article on mythological ships for people who are interested in the topic. The articles on individual ships could be linked from there, as well as Noah's Ark - which is kind of like a ship. Why is a category needed as well?

959:"Everyone" knows it? I don't know it. The other people wanting this kept don't know it. Unless you're a mindreader or someone posted a message stating that they created the category for purposes of antagonism, you don't know it. 1154:, which was previously suggested. I'll gladly support a change in wording if someone comes up with something close to the meaning of "mythological", but neither of those have quite the meaning we're looking for. I've watched 688:

and there is no reason a mythological ship can't be real. Troy is a mythological city, but it's also real. Charlemagne is a real king that has large mythological elements to his story. Religion is a type of mythology anyways.

1163:

concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

4598:

Some of the heroes (like the powerpuff girls and superman) are confirmed to have superpowers. But some of them are unconfirmable, how can we tell if some of them used machines to get the powers and not have it in them?

2153:

One thing that is good about the system we use now is it is consistent with other categories for university people, for instance (x) alumni and (x) faculty, so it looks good on the university pages, for instance

2358:

I spotted these during the tidy and there is no reason for having the two. "comics" is more general than "comic book" but I thought these were usually plural. So I'd support them both being move/merged/renamed

1105:

used the phrase "nothing more than mythology" in this discussion. I believe using a term that is nothing more than a synonym for "untrue or erroneous" in a category directly violates a fundamental tenet of

4233: 1637: 3055: 1430: 1102:

A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

2328:

I only found one with "Comics Convention" in the name, but then again, I only found one with "Comic Convention" in the name. There are a number with either "Comic Con" or "Comic Book Convention".

4536:

count as a hero with powers, or merely a non-powered human who uses technology? How would a character be categorized if they used to have powers but currently don't?) See related discussion for

4224: 3246:, I have proposed deleting the prelates category, and in the other cases they should be renamed to the more familiar term "bishop", which is how the office-holders concerned are usually known. 1889: 1547: 2082: 1036:- make a more hard-and-fast distinction between "ships in myth" (eg, for sake of argument, those in the Iliad) and "ships that are so big that we can scarcely believe they were true" (eg 2325:

I agree that these should be merged as redundant, and your reasoning makes sense. I just can't find enough consistency in what the conventions themselves are called. Look at their names.

3262:, but so far as I can see there are no articles on any holders of that post, which in any case ranks below that of a bishop and is unlikely to be notable of itself. To avoid confusion, 1835: 1709: 1175:

Epic would work if we were a little more informal here. In common American useage the Ark, the Titanic, and the Argo could all be called epic ships. As in, "That's really, like, epic!"

1826: 1772: 1529: 1119:

term currently seems to carry too much baggage to be supportable. I could support the continued use of the term only if it meant, and was intended to mean, something consistent with

1790: 4725: 4540: 2759: 42: 37: 2081:

Three characters, actually, if you include the space. But even three characters isn't going to give anyone RSI, and the "of" formulation also has the benefit of consistency with

3379:- Although "prelate" may be a technically correct title for these people, these categories will confuse people looking up information on bishops. The rename seems appropriate. 2426:. If it just says Comic or Comics some people will think you are talking about comedy or comedians. I am not a comic book fan and that is what would come to mind first for me. 4904: 1392: 1808: 1754: 1395:. In the prior CfD, the same rename was proposed and apparently gained (minimal) consensus, but the rename was not completed for the entire category when the CfD was closed. 3751: 2606:

was "opposed to apartheid" before his 1989 volte-face. And since apartheid ended, it's near-impossible to find anyone who admits to having supported it over its 4 decades. --

974:

everyone knows this is what it's for, even the people voting to keep and even the onees who created the article. Of course it can't be proven, it's just my assertion, okay?

1280:

You're quite right; I misremembered. I suggested it but didn't do so. That's what I get for writing late at night and not thinking. I'll be glad to take the credit though :P

1942:

Why is one any better than the other? I almost prefer the way these are now, as they fit in with school-related alumni/people/etc categories. Do you also propose renaming

1907: 1898: 1862: 1673: 946:- Come on, everyone knows this category was only created for purposes of one POV to antagonize another POV, and has no genuine value. I'd like to AGF, but Steve is right. 4102:. Most of the listed companies also sell the product. I created the category, and think Fertilizer Companies fits better (didn't like the "producer" name so much either) 1293:"The fact that you didn't bother is certainly indicative of something"? This sure sounds like you are trying real hard to point at a speck in my eye! But the fact is, I 3747: 3659: 1736: 1682: 1439: 4754: 4583: 1655: 1556: 1520: 1475: 4935:. Since for some bizarre reason wikipedia has found it appropriate to retain zillions on article on these fictional characters, we should use the correct plural. -- 1943: 1745: 1727: 1610: 1538: 2310: 791:

My proposed compromise was quickly reverted. I can see that feelings run high on both sides of the "controversy." However I still think it is the best solution.

2155: 1619: 3856: 1871: 1799: 1781: 1592: 1574: 1922:

These proposed new category names should be checked for consistency, particularly in the use of "the." Please feel free to correct or amend this proposal. --

1718: 1691: 1601: 4241: 1511: 431:

Across the board 99% of categories of firms use the "of" form. Inconsistency does not save time, quite the opposite in fact, it wastes a great deal of it.

3848: 3232:, and there is no need to use the less familiar term "prelate". (Prelate does appear to have a broader meaning of "religious leader", but we already have 3042: 847:) are about ships that appeared in stories that are commonly referred to as mythology. Grouping the mythological ships together is appropriate. Whether 1817: 1628: 21: 3485:. The title of the category is misspelled. I have already created a new category with the correct spelling and moved the only article in the category. 1252:

exists. The fundies just don't like to see their religion categorized along with every other one, because they think they are special for some reason.

1664: 1583: 1565: 1552: 1448: 4155:. I don't think "manufacturing" is the correct term to describe the production of chemicals. And Animals cannot be "Companies" so it is unambiguous. 3839: 3270:... although I would question whether it is appropriate to create a category for every obscure rank in the complex hierarchies of large religions. -- 1763: 1484: 1466: 1457: 271: 2652:

Only activists deserve a category. Just having an opinion shouldn't count. How can we know someone's opinion anyway, without reading their mind?

1166:

Neither "epic" nor "legendary" have that particular meaning, and I don't think we should change it just because some people have a bad vocabulary.

2945: 2068:

I don't understand this objection. Are the two characters in "of" really that onerous to type? That's the entire difference in length here. --

1853: 1646: 1502: 1421: 638:

and many others, including ships from Norse and Greek mythology, "ghost ships", ships from myths of the Pacific native peoples, and many others.--

280: 1916: 1633: 1493: 1298:

categories altogether, while "Mesoamerican" religions sidestep the distinction entirely. This is now being resolved at the appropriate place.

17: 4944: 3907: 3763: 3507: 3327: 3304: 3279: 2969: 2921: 2771: 2615: 2410:. It is an already established category and seems to follow the convention of using 'comic book' in the names of categories on this topic. 2094: 2034: 1885: 1426: 397: 349: 3051: 1947: 1844: 4504: 1880: 1705: 1412: 1244:

page by fundamentalist Christians, and has been the source of much friction. This arises from a misunderstanding on their part of the word

4496: 1768: 1525: 2987: 2953: 2949: 2901: 1543: 1388: 115: 1831: 1804: 1750: 1391:

to take the form "Presidents of (institution)" rather than "(Institution) presidents," for consistency. This nomination follows up on

4697: 4689: 4525: 1822: 127: 4532:'s enhanced strength count as a power? Would he be categorized here for that brief period when he did have superhuman strength? Does 4487: 2932:

Comment - only one of the duplicates is needed, but unless this one is strictly incorrect nomenclature, it is at least less verbose.

1894: 1840: 1786: 1044:) - the former should be in this category, the latter should not. Suggest the latter are thrown out of the category and the category 2787: 2681: 2549: 336: 262: 4722: 4537: 1858: 1651: 2175:

pointed out during the previous CfD, some institutions really rarely or never use this form of the title for their presidents. --

1723: 1606: 1534: 4680: 4083: 4067: 2871: 1903: 1669: 1615: 564: 534: 3685: 2115: 1795: 1777: 1732: 1700: 1678: 1570: 1435: 1403: 3456: 3078: 2879: 2519: 2376:

The fact that the site I cited is named Comic Book Conventions tips the scales for me. They should all merge into the existing

1714: 1597: 1516: 1471: 244: 3693: 1741: 1507: 4718: 4665: 3151: 2111: 1995: 1971: 1958: 1813: 1696: 1624: 1399: 385: 267: 3464: 2957: 2862: 2527: 1867: 1660: 1588: 1579: 1561: 1444: 3676: 3655: 3520: 1759: 1687: 1480: 1462: 1453: 4856: 4386: 4041: 3986: 3878:

issues, unencylcopedic etc. No doubt we could have "people who have a some stage claimed they don't beat their wife" too.

3731: 3447: 3267: 3175: 2689: 2510: 1849: 1642: 1498: 1417: 377: 332: 2703:

Yes. Almost all people support the government they happen to live under. That's just human nature, for better or worse.

1912: 1489: 111: 4351: 4012: 2665: 1072:

has been addressed multiple times, and the consensus has been to keep the tag, though a small minority have fought it.

253: 5011: 4824: 4800: 4654: 4630: 4464: 4440: 4322: 4298: 4198: 4174: 4136: 4115: 3970: 3944: 3816: 3792: 3643: 3619: 3422: 3398: 3115: 3091: 3033: 3009: 2836: 2812: 2485: 2461: 2248: 2224: 1876: 1408: 1359: 1335: 500: 476: 199: 175: 74: 3600:

What is the point of categories like this? Isn't it pretty much just a matter of chance what people happen to die of?

3067: 2755: 2742: 2685: 2363:. Obviously if they aren't plural then go with the current proposal as whatever the final name this does need doing. ( 2360: 1018:. It is too small and indeed POV (concerning the meaning of "mythology"), better place contents in "legendary ships". 572: 525: 276: 3147: 2439: 2423: 2407: 2377: 2292: 2263: 4418: 4405:

which is the category for places that people live. This is the existing standard. No reason to go up to Geography.

4402: 3171: 258: 4152: 4099: 4020: 4003: 3982: 3954: 3233: 2168: 240: 4992: 4979: 4970: 4958: 4923: 4911: 4890: 4840: 4785: 4773: 4761: 4745: 4732: 4673: 4615: 4603: 4590: 4574: 4562: 4547: 4480: 4425: 4409: 4393: 4377: 4365: 4341: 4283: 4270: 4217: 4159: 4143: 4125: 4106: 4090: 4074: 4056: 3996: 3929: 3912: 3889: 3832: 3777: 3737: 3669: 3604: 3592: 3573: 3561: 3544: 3531: 3512: 3489: 3440: 3383: 3367: 3349: 3332: 3309: 3284: 3138: 2994: 2974: 2936: 2926: 2855: 2797: 2776: 2749: 2733: 2721: 2707: 2696: 2672: 2656: 2644: 2632: 2620: 2593: 2581: 2569: 2556: 2503: 2446: 2430: 2414: 2395: 2384: 2367: 2346: 2332: 2317: 2271: 2209: 2197: 2183: 2162: 2143: 2126: 2099: 2076: 2063: 2051: 2039: 2017: 2001: 1982: 1964: 1930: 1378: 1320: 1302: 1288: 1275: 1256: 1249: 1212: 1193: 1179: 1170: 1138: 1127: 1080: 1060: 1024: 1010: 998: 978: 963: 950: 934: 894: 880: 867: 855: 815: 795: 782: 757: 745: 721: 693: 680: 668: 654: 642: 617: 604: 518: 461: 449: 435: 426: 414: 402: 364: 354: 323: 311: 297: 249: 231: 160: 148: 134: 102: 4940: 4900: 3903: 3759: 3503: 3323: 3300: 3275: 3211: 3199: 3167: 3159: 2965: 2917: 2767: 2611: 2090: 2030: 1950:? The phrasing is more awkward in the proposed names, too... at least on names that don't involve "University." — 1097: 1049: 393: 345: 5010: