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:Delete noting also WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. There are basically two discussions here - whether to rename or whether to delete. Those advocating deletion have understandably not contributed to the question of naming so this CFD can't be taken as a naming precedent either way. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1. Like Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. 2. Most of these articles call these rabbis "sages of the Land of Israel", and the category should say the same. 3. Compare this Cfd and the Rfc mentioned in it. 4. This is yet another attempt of Chesdovi to push the word "Palestinian" on various namespaces, as witnessed to by the fact that he added this category to Category:Palestinian Jews. Chesdovi's edits in this field have met heavy resistance, but he keeps pushing it with endless discussions and tens of edits in all namespaces. He should not be allowed to create more disruption with this category, until centralised discussion has taken place to show whether consensus for this exists. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did Cyril of Jerusalem also live in Eretz Yisrael?! On Hebrewwiki they both may have lived in Eretz Yisrael, but here on English wiki, they both lived in Palestine. This is historical fact. No efforts are being made to re-write history here! Chesdovi (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Term "Palestine" is obviously ambiguous. Term "Land of Israel" (which is what Yoninah means with "Eretz Israel") is the consensus term since 2006. Debresser (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note When I wrote this proposal, I was concerned mainly with the term "Palestine" in connection with these articles about rabbis. Now that I saw the arguments for deletion brought by my fellow editors, I agree that this category should in fact be deleted. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how very convienient for you. We can see then that none of those editors voting for delete have any issue with you "Palestine" non-problem. So you are again proved wrong on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They way WP:CFD works is that people comment on what to do with a certain category. They do not vent all their opinions here, even when related. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, the only reason I didn't comment on the rename proposal was because I was in favour of outright deletion as my preferred option. If you would like me to express an opinion on the rename proposal, I would say that if the category were not deleted, I would support the proposed rename so that it would match with Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. I had no doubt about it. This argument has indeed been the main argument against Chesdovi's tens of edits throughout all namespaces, propagandising the term "Palestinian" in relation to articles about rabbis and other Jewish-related subjects. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this is about the "modern-day political" after all. So much for Debrseer's claim to the contrary. At least now we have the truth, it will be easier to get support for the correct usage. I knew it all along. Both of you should remember that politics should play no part in wikipedias editing policies. Chesdovi (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yoni: “However, I agree with Debresser that since the term has become a modern-day political football”
Deb: “This argument has indeed been the main argument against Chesdovi's tens of edits throughout all namespaces, propagandising the term "Palestinian"”.
This discussion will be linked to show that Deb is against using the term "Palestine" in relation to Jews. I have never come across any other editors besides you two who are of this view. Chesdovi (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is unrelated to this discussion. 2. This is untrue, and your linking to my posts here will not help you to prove anything outrageous of the sort. Now "propagandising", that is to say, using a term where other terms are more correct for the sole purpose of furthering some agenda, that is something I don't like, and I'll try to fight that here on Wikipedia as well as in real life with all my might. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You use the term Propaganda because you oppose this term not for reasons you have been stating all along, but rather because you hold a POV in regard to the I/P conflict, for it is in conflcits that the "P" term is used by protagonists. My agenda is COMMONNAME, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 5 September 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.
comment The Trans-boundary river article discusses both trans-boundary and international rivers. Every river I checked in this category and its subcats is an international river. It remains to be seen whether trans-boundary rivers have any great interest that would justify a category structure. Hmains (talk) 05:40, 4 September 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:FIlms set in University Place, Washington
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:Upmerge Clear case of overcategorization. This is a very small category with little if any potential for growth. University Place is a small town and it's hard to really imagine any reader would look for this category in order to find that particular film. Pichpich (talk) 12:27, 3 September 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.
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:Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
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.
Keep: all Wikipedia article are works in progress. Additions to aircraft articles with sections on the notable aviators who flew them will enhance them further and also allow a better understanding of aviators such as Saint-Exupery. For example see this section on P-38s flown by Saint-Exupéry . Similar sections in the articles of the other aircraft he flew during his life will benefit readers of Saint-Exupéry; a category allows readers to locate such aircraft with ease –Saint-Exupéry flew at least 27 models during his life before he disappeared. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of both the author and the plane. I've got a big P-38 poster up in my office. I read and appreciated Little Prince. However, there is no future in starting a series of intersections of pilots and aircraft. No benefit will come to the reader to know that a famous test pilot might have once flown a humble cargo plane. All the categories of pilot vs trainer aircraft would fill the bottoms of the trainer aircraft article with hundreds of categories, none of them worth the connection. Even on first line planes such as the P-38, the number of categories added to the bottom would be too large, weakening the effect of the pilots who actually accomplished something in the plane. For instance, General Jimmy Doolittle flew a P-38 over the D-Day invasion but he never shot an enemy down in one. The presence of guys like him in a big collection of categories would dilute the true marvels such as Bong, McGuire and MacDonald. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete not constructive nor encyclopaedic. If a pilot did something notable in a certain aircraft it should be in their article; if they did something really notable it would be in the aircraft article (or perhaps their unit article?). If we repeated with other notable pilots we end up with the category "aircraft types flown by Eric Brown. If aircraft are to end up in eponymous categories it should be because the individual designed it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above not really the sort of thing that needs to be categorised, potentially an aircraft article could have loads of Somebody with an article flew this categories which dont really help. MilborneOne (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is better covered in the article text than via a category. It could also lead to an inflation problem with hundreds of cats "Aircraft flown by X", which would contribute nothing but clutter. - Ahunt (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a tangential property of an aircraft marque, not a defining one. "Cars driven by X" would be equally unsatisfactory. Occuli (talk) 11:13, 3 September 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.
