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:Oil platforms in the United Kingdom/United States/Norway
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.
I don't think anywhere in territorial waters could be appropriately referred to as "in the country". Hence, "off" would still be a correct use. I'm not claiming the last word on this matter though. __meco (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Oil platform for these categories means typically offshore fixed structure, although it may be also floating platform such as semi-submersible or jack-up. Floating platforms are usually registered in the ship registers and in that case "of" refers not to location but the the flag of the register. On the other hand, if the platform is installed to the seabed, it is an installation and in this case "in" seems more appropriate. As country has jurisdiction over its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, I don't see anything wrong to referring it as "in the country X". Beagel (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Off" -- The Bushranger misses the point; they are not in any country (i.e. on land), as you do not generally need a platform, only some well-head structure for it. It will be necessary to explain in a headnote that these relate to the economic zones of the countries in question. These frequently extend considerably further than the territorial waters of the countries. The North Sea has been divided by interantional treaty into zones where each of the litoral nations can exploit oil and gas. Note, the question of which oilfields are off England and which are off Scotland is a highly political one relating to nationalist aspirations in Scotland. Oil fields in the area east of southern Scotland may need to be placed in the UK category to avoid edit-warring, unless a robust and uncontroversial criterion can be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you're missing my point. Are all of the oil platforms currently "in Foo" actually owned/operated by Foo? Because that is what "of Foo" changes the scope to. "Oil platforms in Latveria", for instance, could include platforms owned and operated by Grand Fenwick under licensing agreements in Latveria's EEZ; "Oil platforms of Latveria", however, can not, because the "of" indicates clearly its scope is "Latverian oil platforms". - The BushrangerOne ping only20:15, 17 July 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is categorization that is U.S.-centric. Similar categories were deleted here and here. Every country has their own list of controlled drugs and substances, and we can't categorize articles about the substances into a category for each such list. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize things based on a control scheme taken up in one nation when they are substances that can exist anywhere. If we allow this, we have to allow categories for every nation and down that road is madness of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. Expanding this scheme globally would be unfeasible, or rather highly disruptive. Lists are better for this. __meco (talk) 07:06, 12 July 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Style" is a disambiguation page and this category appears to be grouping anything connected to the various usages and meanings of the word. We have no article about a generic concept of "style" in the abstract. Category pages are not meant to function as disambiguation pages for generic or common terminology. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Style (visual arts) is not a disambig. The concept in aesthetics is common to all of the subcategories. This isn't about terminology, there is clearly a common concept here. My goal in creating this category is to ensure that things are well organized in the aesthetics department. I think we can all see that this category brings together diverse areas, so that would be a big loss. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greg Bard's objection ignored the fact that Style is not an article but a disambiguation page. This category seems to be grouping together lots of different things just because they can all in some way be called "style". It is essentially a grouping by like name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little concerned that you are both referring to a disambiguation page, claiming that this is about disambiguation, and the page that you are both referring to is neither a member of the category, nor referred to in any way. I have designated Style (visual arts) as the main page for this category. Please reconsider carefully. Also, please if you could both acknowledge the receipt of this response, so I know that it is not being ignored. (I specifically resolved this in my opposition, so I am concerned that it is being ignored.) Greg Bard (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really am finding myself doing a lot more explaining that I would like to do here. I've actually studied aesthetics, please defer. (All that is in my power to do is ask politely in the absence of understanding). It would be more proper to move "Style (visual arts)" to "Style." You think WAY too rigidly in an a dynamic and evolving medium. The subject matter that this category is intended for is all manifestations of the aesthetic concept of style. That applies equally validly to all kinds of arts. It is certainly NOT just merely an issue of common terminology, and I would question the knowledge of anyone who put forward that they don't see that. Greg Bard (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Gregbard, we disagree, as we have before from time to time. It's OK for users to disagree without requiring one to defer to the knowledge and beliefs of the other. We don't need to imply that the other user doesn't understand, or is too rigid a thinker, or obviously knows nothing of the subject. We can just disagree and rely on other users to help us try to find a consensus. I acknowledge your polite requests. However, it's not about you, and it's not about me, and it's not about the interaction between the two of us, so I would suggest we not make comments to make it seem like it should be. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you don't have to do anything. All I can do is ask. Insofar as issues concerning categories are concerned, I would defer to you. I don't see why you wouldn't defer to me likewise in the philosophy department. I think Wikipedia has evolved to the point to where we need to make a policy of remitting issues to appropriate WikiProjects for their approval. This is how it is done in deliberative bodies everywhere but here. Greg Bard (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may not see why I don't defer to you, but then behind that thinking there must be some sort of assumption that your opinion is more likely to be correct than mine. You can think that if you want to, but it's not necessarily true, as you surely know. But anyway, even if the system you suggest is recommended, I don't think such a system would work. If that were the system, I would just join the Philosophy WikiProject so that I could have a say about these issues, and we're back to square one. The current system makes WikiProject participation optional and supplementary, as I believe it should be to the project as a whole. I choose not to join WikiProjects, but that alone doesn't mean that I am necessarily any less knowledgeable, experienced, or expert than a user who does choose to join. (And personally, I would hope that no user would defer to me against their own opinion, knowledge, intuition, or preference just because they are dealing with me. Everybody likes to be "right" or with the majority consensus, but if others are going to agree with me I would hope it is sincere and not merely deferential.) Good Ol’factory(talk)03:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with about 98% of your activity, and you only hear from me in these instances. If you did join WP:PHILO just for political purposes, quite frankly that would be fair game, and I would have nothing to say against that. At least you would be working within a more legitimate system where you would be forced to face people in the actual relevant subject area (Please see Roberts Rules, etc. Remitting proposals to committees is pretty well accepted by ...everywhere but here). I hardly believe that avid editors who work in diverse areas could join all the projects that would cover every scenario. In the case of "style" I have been seeing the eventual need for it for quite some time, and am only getting around to it now. Greg Bard (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, as long as the notice is neutral, it's OK to add a note at WP:PHILO pointing members of that WikiProject to discussions at CFD. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Discussions on categories are at CFD but WikiProjects can be and often are notifed of them, and anyone who is interested in the WikiProject can participate here. I've put up a notice here. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; even though it's not the most useful category for navigation, it's better to have it than not have it. Sometimes a vague connection can have some utility for exploring a concept. – FayenaticLondon23:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree / Rename / Delete. It's not useful for navigating. The vague connections for exploring the concept would be better suited to an article/list/disambig with explanations. I would say rename this to Category:Style (visual arts) to match the article (and obviously sort its contents). I acknowledge the truth of the connections between these different perspectives of the term, particularly from a perspective of aesthetics, but think this would be better discussed on an article like, Style (aesthetics), which would be about the appropriate discourse, before this category is created, because until then, it appears as WP:OR. I would also love to group the terms from a rhetoric's perspective but guess that would be WP:OR too. Brad7777 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename Plain "Style" is too ambiguous, and the category covers (and/or should cover) "Style in the arts", which is one possible rename candidate, without resorting to (). The nomination is clearly wrong; the category does not attempt to cover Style (botany) etc, and covers a coherent and important topic. But one where the plain term is ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The compalint is that there is no main article. In fact there are two, Style (aesthetics) could usefully be treated as the main article (and renamed accordingly) with a hatnote link for sociolinguistics and "other uses", which seems to me a subsidiary use of the term. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at the contents I was leaning towards a rename. However after looking at the contents, this is really a collection of shared names type of category. If you take that together with the dab page, there is no reason to keep this category. All of the articles and subcategories have ample categories, so Delete and Salt. If we need style categories, they should be of the form, Categoy:Style (area). Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the contents clearly fall under the arts and aesthetics, and most of the stuff on the disam page is excluded. I'm not seeing the problem here. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem is that Style by itself cannot be used to mean just one of the possible meanings of style. If you want to do that, you need to specify the disambiguation in the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A problem solved by the many suggestions above to rename it to "Style in the arts", "Style (aesthetics)" etc, which is what it should have been called in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you do have a point, but it should be noticed several of the above statements are for just a plain keep that does nothing to address concerns about being a broad collection of urrelated things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 28 July 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.
