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: This category has become seriously misused, and there is an apparent misunderstanding as to its purpose. It was originally nominated at CFDS to have Category:American nobility merged into it - but these two categories are in entirely seperate trees. This category was then proposed for renaming (to the current target) to fit its tree, but that was objected to because "The category is being used for nobility not noble jurisdictions. If you want a separate category for the jurisdictions, simply create one and put relevant articles in it." The trouble is this category is for noble jurisdictions, Category:American nobility is for nobility of the Americas. The BushrangerOne ping only23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not aware of any noble jurisdictions in the Americas. Noble jurisdiction is a medieval concept that doesn't apply to any Native American or Colonial culture as far as I know.
Can this and the related discussions be resolved by (1) moving this category to "Titles of nobility of the Americas" (2) moving American nobility to "Nobility of the Americas" and (3) moving inappropriately categorised articles from one to the other? DrKiernan (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no article about The Leadership Council. I don't think being a member of a borderline non-notable organization is defining for an individual, so we don't need to categorize by it. An article about the organization would be a better place to start. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is now an article about The Leadership Council on Wikipedia. It is a notable organisation, whose research has been referred to in a number of reputed independent sources. Its members are also influential public figures. They have chosen to be actively part of a research body, which is both defining and relevant to them. I support this category. However, I am new to Wikipedia, so please do advise otherwise. Thanks. Wikiguru9549 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2011 (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:merge. We could do a reverse merge, but in all respects Category:Nobility of Luxembourg would be eligible for speedy renaming to standardize it within the subcategories of Category:European nobility. If editors do not like "Luxembourgian", then as the nominator points out the tree needs to be nominated. This very narrow discussion is not the place to deal with that broad issue. For now the tree uses "Luxembourgian", so that's what we use here.Good Ol’factory(talk)00:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There seems to be some attempt here to be more inclusive of non-Luxembourgian nobles by splitting the categories, but it's too fine a distinction for clarity's sake. A hatnote should suffice for the outliers, if they are included.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The usual term for people from Luxembourg is Luxemburger or Luxembourgeois. Luxembourgian is an ugly neologism that should be changed throughout this category tree to something more recognisable. DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2011 (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.
Delete -- The Earl is not archaeology, but history. Several of the others are in Norfolk and duly categorised. Anything left should be in Category:Archaeology of Suffolk, which may need to be created. The normal split for subjects like this is by county. East Anglia was an Anglian kingdom, and is a modern region that may be somewhat larger than the kingdom. Accordingly thescope of the category is ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2011 (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.
Creator's rationale: I just made it because I thought it would be helpful, because when I create more articles, would it not be an easy way to see other articles if the reader enjoyed it? But if not, then go ahead with it, its fine with me:) {Lumastan (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
If every editor similarly started categorizing the articles to which he's contributed significantly, we would get a complete mess. It's true that you created the article but you don't own it and since anyone can edit any article, it's quite possible that a year from now your contribution to the article will be barely noticeable. Pichpich (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale: While the putative main article is at water landing, ditching redirects there - and is the subject of this category, as the article includes by-design water landings, which, happening by design, aren't especially categorizable. When a water landing is made as part of a crash, though, it's a ditching - so this category should reflect that. Using "involving" for the connecting phrase as the ditching is the result of the accident, not the cause (same as for the CFIT category under the parent cat). The BushrangerOne ping only08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support LaGuardia has a Marine Air Terminal, where the Clipper flying boats used to land regularly on the water for scheduled passenger service, so water landing was a common trait previously. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except "crashlanding on water" is not a term that is ever used - "ditching" is. I'll see what I can do about turning "ditching" into an article all on its own over the next couple of days. Also, the category trees are "Aviation accidents and incidents..." and "Airliner accidents and incidents..." so those need to be included in the name. - The BushrangerOne ping only18:22, 28 November 2011 (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:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by intentional disregard for a standard operating procedure by pilot
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.
Pilot error ≠ intentional disregard. Not necessarily, anyway. I haven't the time nor interest to go through the articles to see if such a claim would be supported anyway -- but just pointing out that the rename would change the meaning, as well... would it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if a pilot intentionally disregards SOPs and then an accident results, the pilot made an "error" in choosing to disregard the SOPs. But I think intuitively there is something slightly different in the formulation of the two. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Intentional disregard of operating procedures" is, I believe, generally classed as "Pilot error" by the NTSB - the procedures are there for a reason, and they made an error in disregarding them. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that. Interesting how the logic works: there is no such thing as a mere error or lapse in judgement: it's always called an intentional disregard of SOP, because the SOP is designed to eliminate the chance of any human error. Makes sense, I guess. I know a commercial pilot and I must remember to ask him, just for my own curiosity.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment criminal pilot activity is not the same as pilot error. The NTSB does not classify pilot suicide murdering the passengers of a passenger jet with pilot error. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then that wouldn't be "ignoring standard operating procedures", that would be an intentional crash. Note that three of the four articles currently in the cat are clear pilot-error cases, while the fourth is kids-in-the-cockpit - a severe judgement error if nothing else! - The BushrangerOne ping only08:03, 23 November 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale: The current name for this category is...well, it's descriptive, but somehow not quite suitable, I think, and doesn't fit the category tree at all. The proposed target does, but I'm not completely happy with it - I'm open to suggestions if somebody can think of a better one. The BushrangerOne ping only01:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Meh. This is the neverending issue of brief vs verbose. As the one who created the category, I can say it was worded to fit the brief style of other similar existing categories at the time. The new suggestion is indeed equivalent meaning, but just a different style, not a compelling difference. There are now subcategories of Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners worded briefly or verbosely. Unless you're going to write a guideline and make them all consistent with it, then changing one is just a gratuitous style quibble. Ikluft (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the categories that are not in the "Airliner accidents and incidents caused by/involving foo" format, are in the process of being changed to that format. Most are at WP:CFD/S, but a couple (such as this one) were more siginficant changes so required a full discussion. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "involving" is about a weasely word one could choose. Nearly all hull losses would fall into this category - unless one can show that at least one engine was salvaged (rare, no doubt), because nearly all "involve" the the engines not running (perhaps after highspeed impact with the ground), but they do stop eventually and not with an "off" switch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those would be preferable, of course. As the cause is the thing. And as for WP:COMMONSENSE; it's an essay not gospel. If a category is defined broadly by its title, I would expect to see all things within the category to be placed there, because whatever was meant by the category creator is not binding on any category reader; just as someone who creates a category for all things they love about their favorite football team, product, corporation, cannot later exclude inclusion of all the faults, scandals, and failings of the subject from the category...in a vain echo of the NY Times' motto: "all the articles that fit, we include." Precision is important. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2011 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)