text:
Talk:Dolomite (rock)

Untitled
The AGI may be hung up on tradition and precedence and therefore wish to perpetuate ambiguity by the dual use of dolomite. However, I see no reason for wikipedia to confuse readers and prefer dolostone for the rock. Vsmith 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

After some searching, I find no evidence to support the AGI statement about dolostone. So I have removed the bit here pending a reference:
 * The term dolostone was introduced in 1948 to avoid confusion with the mineral dolomite. The usage of dolostone is controversial because the word dolomite was first applied to the rock during the early nineteenth century and thus has precedence. Although use of the term dolostone avoids ambiguity, it is not recommended by the tradition bound American Geological Institute.

I find AGI publications using the term dolostone and therefore am dubious about the not reccommended statement. Vsmith 01:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

dolostone
This may seem rather petty but the term “dolostone” is not recommended for the rock composed largely of the mineral dolomite. The American Geological Institute recommends that the term “dolomite” be used for both the rock and the mineral (Jackson, 1997). This is the opinion also of most European geologists and most specialists in carbonate sedimentology and petrology (see for instance Bathurst, 1971; Tucker and Wright, 1990; and see especially Zenger and Mazzullo, 1982, page 1). The term “dolomite” actually has priority for the rock. The mineral dolomite had already been described and was termed “pearl spar” when the rock, dolomite, was first described by Deodat Guy de Dolomieu in 1791 (see the discussion by Vatan, 1958). I must also point out that Harvey Blatt (author of the text cited by Vsmith) is a sandstone petrologist, not a specialist on carbonate rocks, Bob Tracy, the co-author, is an igneous petrologist and did not write the section of the text referred. The authors cited above, with the exception of Jackson, are all carbonate petrologists and sedimentologists. Don Zenger is one of the world's foremost specialists on dolomite. The American Geological Institute is a dynamic organization, supported by almost all practicing geologists in the United States through their numerous professional societies. They certainly are not "hung up on tradition and precedence". Finally, I would humbly submit that I am also considered a specialist on dolomite with numerous scholarly publications to my credit on the subject. I am new to Wikipedia but I will try to post my bio and credentials shortly.

Bathurst, R. G. C., 1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis: New York, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 658 p.

Jackson, J. A., 1997, Glossary of geology, Fourth edition: Alexandra, VA, American Geological Institute, 769 p.

Tucker, M. E., and Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate Sedimentology: Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 482 p.

Vatan, A., 1958, "Dolostone": Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 28, p. 514.

Zenger, D. H., and Mazzullo, S. J., eds., 1982, Dolomitization: Stroudsburg, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 426 p.

 * The word is widely used in the geological community (including AGI publications) and it avoids ambiguity and confusion. Usage and clarity are the guide, not semantic quibbles by specialists. Vsmith 04:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

dolostone
I have made several minor editorial changes to the last editorial changes of VSmith, perhaps a compromise is in order. I believe that it is inappropriate to consider Geotimes a scientific publication although it is published by AGI. It is a designed to be a popular news magazine for geologists and those interested in geology. It is not a scientific journal and is almost never referenced in the scientific literature. The Glossary of Geology, another AGI Publication, is frequently cited in the formal literature and is generally regarded as a source of scientific authority (as far as there is any authority in science). AGI publishes no scholarly journals but its constituent societies do.

In the future, unless completely thwarted by my rather overwhelming workload, I would like to edit a number of articles that have to do with, in particular, carbonate rocks and perhaps contribute a few additional articles on geology. Pro bono publico! Jay Gregg 11:39 21 August, 2005

Frequent Use
After reading the discussion here I decided to do a bit of quick reconaissance on the use of the term.

From the AAPG online scientific paper search database (which searches over 14 peer reviewed geological publications):

780 out of ~70,000 items (articles and published abstracts) use the term Dolostone. Of which 271 items are exclusive uses (the word dolomite does not appear). Out of the 271 exclusive uses of the term Dolostone, 81 are published abstracts. From those 81 published abstracts, 3 were publised as a full length article (in one ot the journals searched, of course).

On the other hand, the word dolomite occurs in 9360 papers, of which 8830 are exclusive uses. Out of the 8830 exlusive uses for the term dolomite, 1750 are publised abstracts. Of the 1750 published abstracts 233 were later published as full papers (in the journals the database searched). As an interesting aside, 5946 of the 8830 items do not include the word mineral at all, 3552 of which are full papers.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Semantic battle aside, I cannot agree with the adverb "frequently" as a modifier to the appearance of the term dolostone in geologic literature. It's use is, at best, infrequent.

--RW, fellow geologist

Dolostone
A nice bit of research by RW and I imagine that similar results would be obtained for "Journal of Sedimentary Research" and "Sedimentology", so I must agree with RW on this issue. I believe that the word "frequently" was incerted at the insistance of VSmith. What about it VSmith? Can we drop the word "frequently?" Jay Gregg 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not locked in to the frequently term (such a quantitative term) - dolostone is used by a significant number of researcher. Also need a bit of analysis - the 8830 exlusive uses for the term dolomite - were these articles about the rock or about the mineral? The dual use of the word leads to more confusion - and I like to avoid being confused. Vsmith 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Dolostone
RW points out that the word "mineral" does not appear in the majority of these publications. Typically AAPG references to dolomite concern the rock as dolomite is an important reservoir rock. Also, AAPG Bulletin usually does not publish mineralogical articles. Jay Gregg 21:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Frequent Use
I dropped back by to answer some questions.

I didn't read the articles on dolomite that excluded the use of the word mineral (descriptions of dolomite the mineral in journal articles usually go something like this, "the mineral dolomite" although I think it is safe to assume they discuss the rock dolomite specifically. There is also no guarantee that articles that include the words "mineral" and "dolomite" discuss the mineral dolomite.  In fact, only 57 articles contain the string "mineral dolomite."  So any other investigations to the words' use would require a lot of reading that simply isn't necessary.

Another interesting search is one of our companies (and a few others we've acquired over the years) internal non-published research: no documented uses of the word dolostone at all. Incidentally, it is the largest library of non-published, proprietary geologic research in the world.

I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other here. I personally don't get upset over dolostones use (if it helps non professionals and new learners, great!). However, I think that the context of the word dolomite when it is used in literature is so unambiguous that I find it puzzling that some geologists believe it causes confusion--I don't think that is entirely true. I can see it causing a bit of a headache when searching for specific contextual uses of the word (as I have done) but that situation is unlikely.

While the term is used by some geologists, I think the disclaimer on its use is entirely appropriate and I'm glad it was placed there. Thank you, Dr. Gregg.

--RW

Caves in Dolomite Rock
Hi Vsmith

I think there is a real issue here. I wrote the section on "Caves in Dolomite Rock" to add to the overall Wiki knowledge on the subject. I specifically included the words "Dolomite Rock" in the section title, as this is the term used by the overwhelming majority of Speleologists and Geologists worldwide. This is so evident in the universal, world renowned book edited by Hill and Forti and published by NSS - The American National Speleological Society. This is also echoed in the publication "Encyclopedia of Caves" published in the UK with over 100 articles by world-wide experts.

The point is that the wider community overwhelmingly use the words "Dolomite rock" or just "dolomite" on its own to indicate the host rock in which caves have formed. What I had written certainly ties in with the existing title of the wiki page. If anything the title of the page should be changed to read "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" as it appears that neither the "American Geological Institute" nor the US "National Speleological Society" nor the rest of the world use this term "Dolostone". It appears to be very much a minority group using this term "Dolostone" and not universal as Wikipedia strives to achieve. Hence the sentences which you have deleted, was reinforcing that the speleological community use the term "dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to the particular chemistry of the bedrock in which caves have been created. With all alterations to Wikipedia pages, it is easy to delete, but harder to write/add to the knowledge on a page. It also take considerable time to chase up references and add them to a page. Something which is sadly lacking on the Dolomite Rock page. I would urge you to reconsider the deletions and alterations which you have made. I look forward to your comments on this subject. Kind Regards Newcaves (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems folks like to promote confusion :) (per all the above posts) Anyway - I would not object to renaming the article to Dolomite rock, but there has to be a distinction between the mineral and the rock composed of the mineral. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that the geological community insists on confusion :) (but - hey its been going on for centuries :). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Correspondence below included here for continuity of discussion/thread.

Hi Vsmith

I have read through the talk page of "Dolostone and Dolomite Rock" and it appears that this issue has been brewing for some years now - but no action. I personally know several speleologists who are very active in the Union Internationale de Spéléologie (UIS) and hold positions on the council of this international speleological organisation and they have always used the terms "Dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to karst areas containing caves. This also fits in with the major literature books which are considered the bible of karst geology, caves and minerals around the world. Hence I think the move of changing the title of the "Dolostone" page to "Dolomite Rock" and the first line to "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" is a good compromise which is long overdue. This is bearing in mind that the world wide geological community also does not recommend the use of the term dolostone. I don't have the expertise to start the ball rolling to change the page name, so would be very grateful if you could instigate this. I could then change the names in the section on caves which relates to the speleological community.

Much appreciate all your thoughts on this subject and would really appreciate it if you are able to change the title of this page - I assume that there would be links from some other pages which would need to be modified. Sorry this part of wikipedia's workings is far beyond my knowledge. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcaves (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't use article space to quibble about the article name. Do you have any sources regarding the mineral dolomite occurring as speleothems? If so, then let's hear it ... and keep the name arguements out of the article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Title of page - 'Dolostone' or 'Dolomite (rock)'?
As pointed out in the discussion above by various contributors, both the international geological community and the international speleological community do not recommend the use of the term ‘dolostone’. One can easily draw the conclusion that the term ‘dolostone’ is just used by a minority and is possibly localised in its use.

There are a considerable number of highly regarded international speleological publications that only use the terms, ‘dolomite’, ‘dolomite rock’, or ‘dolomite in the rock form’, when referring to karst areas of this rock. Despite this it appears that a minority of uncompromising Wikepedia editors remain committed to opposing any change of the title page to ‘Dolomite (rock)’. Dolomite (Rock) would be an unambiguous and satisfactory compromise and the term ‘dolostone’ could still be retained in the first sentence of the description.

Wikipedia should use title page terms, which are most widely used internationally.Newcaves (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed name changes
Although I am a complete layman in these matters, I have been on WP for some years. If I end up being more confused at the end of an article than when I started, there's usually something going on behind the scenes: and lo and behold! a naming controversy.

Having ploughed my way through these talk pages, (yay, Bender!) I wondered what other languages call the stuff. The French and Italians have different names for the mineral, fr:Dolomite, it:Dolomite and the rock fr:Dolomie, it:Dolomia, so no problem for them. Languages like German and English confusingly use the same word for both, but German WP sensibly has de:Dolomit (Mineral) and de:Dolomit (Gestein).

In order to minimize confusion in the minds of lesser, non-scientific mortals like me and other average readers of WP, I propose that what is currently Dolomite be renamed to Dolomite (mineral), and Dolostone to Dolomite (rock). I'm posting this message on both talk pages. I leave you with the stunning alien landscape of the Cirque de Mourèze. >MinorProphet (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Agree with renaming the two articles to Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock). I do not like Dolomitic rock as a possible title for the rock type because its use is rare compared to "dolomite" or "dolostone". It would have been good if geologists could have widely adopted the term "dolostone" for dolomite (rock) several decades ago but unfortunately that did not happen and therefore the use of "dolostone", for the name of the rock type, is still not as widespread as dolomite. GeoWriter (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello all- Just want to alert you to recent changes made, without discussion here, by an editor new to the article. Eric talk 03:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion as I am not a geologist. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Revert. I still feel that Dolomite (rock) and (mineral) are the best possible terms to distinguish between the two forms. As I stated earlier I am not a geo- or speleologist, but this smells very like the previous discussions above. The person who made the changes has an interesting edit history, and last made an edit nearly a year ago. There is fairly obviously a faction at work here with an axe to grind (apologies if I'm wrong), and WP is not the place to re-write currently accepted terminology, especially without discussion. MinorProphet (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree with renaming the two articles to Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock). for the same reasons specified by GeoWriter. In addition:

 * First, I looked at the latest, online edition, 2011, of the standard glossary for geological terminology, the American Geological Institute's Glossary of Geology, which edited by Neuendorf, K.K.E., J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J.A. Jackson. They listed dolomite as the preferred term for the rock type. About dolostone, they wrote dolostone (do′-lo-stone) A term proposed by Shrock (1948a, p.126) for the sedimentary rock dolomite, in order to avoid confusion with the mineral of the same name. Not recommended; obsolete. The Glossary of Geology definitely considers the term dolomite as not recommended for usage and to be obsolete.

 * Second, I also looked other dictionaries and found: 1. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Earth Science, Second Edition (2003) uses dolomite and does not list dolostone and 2. A Dictionary of EarthSciences third edition (2008), Oxford University Press, lists dolomite as the preferred usage over dolostone.

 * Third, in the Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, & Related Terms that was compiled and edited by the Staff of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, I found dolomite defined as ...c. A carbonate sedimentary rock consisting of more than 50% to 90% mineral dolomite, depending upon classifier, or having a Ca:Mg ratio in the range 1.5 to 1.7, or having an MgO equivalent of 19.5% to 21.6%, or having a magnesium-carbonate equivalent of 41.0% to 45.4%. Dolomite beds are associated and interbedded with limestone, commonly representing postdepositional replacement of limestone. Syn: dolostone; dolomite rock. Dolostone is defined as A term applied by some petrologists to rock consisting primarily of the mineral dolomite. Syn: dolomite. In this case, I would judge the term dolomite as the preferred terminology in terms of usage.

 * Finally, the United States Geological Survey's GeMS — Geologic Map Schema uses dolomite instead of dolostone for the carbonate sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of the mineral dolomite. The 2018 GeMS (Geologic Map Schema) notes: Although "dolostone" is the proper analog to “limestone”, it has not often been applied to dolomitic units; historically, the literature used "dolomite”. In its 2018 Geologic Map Schema, the United States Geological Survey clearly endorses dolomite as the rock name. Paul H. (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Restore Dolostone back to Dolomite (rock) – I like the logic of coining the term dolostone, but it seems that it just never took hold. Thanks to Paul H. for the research, though I must add as a caveat: I can say from long professional experience that the U.S. government, just as with its elected officials, does not as a rule vet material for scholarship -- nor for English fluency -- before it goes to press. Note the delightful "more than 50% to 90%" from the Bureau of Mines, which I presume was an attempt to convey more than 50%. Thanks to all for weighing in. Eric talk 22:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Disagree with restoring Dolostone back to Dolomite (rock) because Dolostone is the current term used in karst science textbooks and by the state geological surveys where dolostones are most commonly found.    Even the USGS' own website redirects the term dolomite to dolostone in their searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdecelle (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I signed your post for you. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP:SIGN. Plus, it would be better to simply list references rather than put them as footnotes. Eric talk 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot to note that use of dolomite instead of dolostone in the United States Geological Survey's GeMS — Geologic Map Schema is of specific significance. The Geologic Map Schema was developed to create a standard digital database stucture and a standard terminology for use in geologic mapping that is conducted by either the United States Geological Survey (USGS) or geologic mapping by state geological survey and universities that is funded by the USGS, e.g. STATEMAP or EDMAP programs. This means from 2018 and onward, the use of dolomite instead of dolostone in USGS-funded geological mapping by higher education and state geological survey is not optional, it is mandatory as part of the Geologic Map Schema. This means that a state geological survey is mandated to use dolomite on any USGS-funded projects and deliverables. This is a deliberate choice to commit to the use of dolomite instead of dolostone in the foreseable future. Of course if a person looks at papers and maps published over the last 70 years by any organization, they will find a some people using dolomite and some people dolostone within it. Paul H. (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The terms Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock) are/were unambiguous as Wikipedia article titles and I think they have worked without problems since they were renamed as those titles about a year ago. The redirect of Dolostone to Dolomite (rock) had also worked well. Unfortunately, they have always been vulnerable to the possibility of an editor wishing to rename to dolostone, as User:Cdecelle has done within the last 9 days. Changing the article title from Dolomite (rock) to Dolostone does not improve the readers ability to navigate to this rock type article nor find the separate mineral article.

 * A problem that affects finding which is the most commonly used term (to comply with WP:COMMONNAME) is that the term dolostone has some use in sedimentary petrology but it has had very little impact on the names of stratigraphic units (groups, formations,members) so we often get the unsatisfactory situation of some geologists who prefer dolostone, being forced to use the name dolomite when they mention rock unit names e.g. "the Geneva Dolomite Member is made of dolostone". Another problem is that searches for dolostone will give accurate usage frequency data but searches for usage frequency of dolomite are unreliable because many search hits will be for the mineral not the rock type.

 * The terms dolomite and dolostone, when used to describe the rock type, are definitely not obsolete. The claim of being obsolete is easily disproved in seconds because one only has to do a web search to find many recent academic articles and books that use either term.

 * Describing dolostone as the more accurate term or the current term (as User:Cdecelle has done in edit summaries and on this Talk page) would be valid only if it was supported by a reliable source reference stating that "dolostone not dolomite is the more accurate/current term" or words to that effect. Lists of examples of dolostone in recent usage do not show that it is more accurate or the current term, they merely show that dolostone is only a current term. There is, however, a source supporting dolomite rather than dolostone that has gone as far as stating that dolomite is correct and dolostone is incorrect. The source is "Dolomites", a book edited by Purser et al. (1994) which was published as a review of the mineral and rock type to mark the bicentennial of Dolmieu's discovery of both the dolomite mineral and rock type. This book almost completely ignores the term dolostone except to state that "Dolostone is in the literature and preferred by many, and will surely remain, but etymologically it is incorrect".

 * The "Encyclopedia of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks" (2003) states on page 127: "Most carbonate sediments and rocks (including limestones and dolomites or dolostones)..."; on page 131: "Dolostones are carbonate rocks consisting of the mineral dolomite"; on page 234: "Dolostone is a rock that consist (sic) of >75 percent dolomite. Dolostones are also called dolomites, especially in the literature prior to about 1990, but the term dolomites should only be used for different types of dolomite ... the origin of dolomites and dolostones is subject to considerable controversy."; on page 236: "The most widely used classification of dolomite/dolostone textures is ..."; on page 237: "a wide range of geochemical methods may be used to characterize dolomites and dolostones." These phrases suggest to me that the authors of that encyclopedia regard dolomite as the mineral and dolostone as the rock and that dolomite should not be used for the rock type.

 * The British Geological Survey's sediment and sedimentary rock classification scheme (1999) states that "Sedimentary rocks which are composed dominantly of dolomite or ankerite are given the group name dolostone."

 * Encyclopedia Britannica redirects occurrences of dolostone to dolomite (rock).

 * If only the French word dolomie, the original non-English name for the rock type, had been translated into English as dolostone way back in 1794, this naming mess could have been avoided. The dolomite/dolostone debate will probably continue for many years. This naming topic is as clear as thick dolomitic mud.

 * I now have no strong objection to either dolomite (rock) or dolostone for this article's title. Dolostone is probably less confusing than dolomite. Dolostone is also less ambiguous and more elegant than dolomite or dolomite (rock) as a term to describe the rock type in the main text of the article and in the text of other related articles.

 * — GeoWriter (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I don't have the textbooks which you quote to hand, I would be grateful for actual quotations and page numbers from the works you cite. If this were a trivial matter, a web page or two from a US State authority might well suffice. But you have made substantial changes to WP without first discussing them on this page, and it is up to you to convince everyone else here that your changes reflect the mainstream of current scientific thought. We have been here before. MinorProphet (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes of course. Ford and Williams in their 2007 "Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology" state on page 9 that "There are two common, pure mineral end-members, limestone(composed of calcite or aragonite) and dolostone (dolomite). Most authors neglect ‘dolostone’ and describe both the mineral and the rock as dolomite." I unfortunately do not have Cave Geology on hand as it is in my office, which I am not allowed into at the moment... For what it's worth, the 1999 "Karst Modeling" edited by the same author as Cave Geology, Arthur Palmer uses the term Dolostone on pages 22 and 35. Ford and Williams', and Palmer's textbooks are very well known. Palmer's Cave Geology more for the layman (although still quite thorough) and Ford and Williams' for research/professional use.
 * I believe that if you look at many scientific articles you will see both dolostone, and dolomite used seemingly randomly. I assume this is because the USGS has seemingly done so for ages and researchers use whatever term is found in the geologic map which they have used for their research. To show it seems random and not geographically constrained, I can point to this USGS site which has many dolostones described as such (and the definition described at the top uses the term Dolostone). I believe the USGS has formalized dolostone as the preferred, and much less confusing term and mainstream textbooks use the term as well.
 * As a side note, I'd like to thank those who have been helping to show me some editing stuff and fixing some of my errors.Cdecelle (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I need to study this some more. As I am confused Paul H. (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The heading currently shown as "Caves in Dolostone" should be changed immediately back to "Caves in Dolomite" as all the references in this section use the term dolomite (with no mention of dolostone). I totally agree with renaming the two articles to Dolomite (mineral) and Dolomite (rock). IntoCaves (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 * A quick search found articles related to speleogenesis and speleothems in the NSS Journal and others outside the country on the formation of caves in dolostone (the word they used) by Hydrogen Sulfide->Sulfuric Acid (Polyak and Provencio 2001). I added a sentence in the "Caves in Dolostone" section about this H2SO4 process. Another article "Climate and cave control on Pleistocene/Holocene calcite-to-aragonite transitions in speleothems from Morocco: Elemental and isotopic evidence" by authored by 9 researches from Germany and morrocco, where the word Dolostone is used instead of Dolomite ( Wassenburg et al 2012). Cdecelle (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cdecelle, the quote that you have given from Ford & Williams (2007) ("Most authors neglect ‘dolostone’ and describe both the mineral and the rock as dolomite.") seems to support giving this Wikipedia article the title Dolomite (rock) rather than Dolostone on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME, but you have used this source to do the opposite. Why do you think that Ford and Williams (2007) supports you action of changing Dolomite (rock) to Dolostone? —GeoWriter (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cdecelle, the USGS webpage https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-lith.php?text=dolostone+%28dolomite%29 that you provided mentions dolostone 32 times but mentions dolomite 173 times. Is this supposed to show support for dolostone instead of dolomite? —GeoWriter (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 * The point I'm trying to show with the USGS page is that Dolostone is a well used term and is now the preferred term by the USGS shown by how they use it as the default term at the top. That webpage is their page for all Dolostone in the USA and if you try and get to the page via dolomite or typing it in, it always redirects to saying Dolostone. Dolomite may have more in the USGS page (due to historical use), but is not correct according to both Ford and Williams, and the USGS/ state surveys.

 * I believe that the term Dolostone, compared to dolomite (rock) would also better fit Wikipedia's five Good title characteristics. Dolostone is clearly more precise of a term, while also being more concise. And I believe the term is just as recognizeable and natural as dolomite (rock). (The other category is consistency, but I don't believe it's relevant because there are no other rocks which have titles referencing Dolostone/dolomite (rock) Cdecelle (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Cdecelle, I agree that using dolostone in Wikipedia instead of dolomite may have merit as per Article titles, but I think that the source references that you have cited to support your claim do not actually support your claim that dolostone is the correct term.

 * — GeoWriter (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Cdecelle, I would interpret the United States Geological Survey's GeMS — Geologic Map Schema as indicating you are completely wrong in claiming that "dolostone" "is now the preferred term used by the USGS." The USGS Geologic Map Schema, which all state surveys are mandated to follow in USGS-funded geological mapping, clearly indicates that starting in 2018 "dolomite" is to be used for all geologic mapping submitted to the USGS. That a legacy, pre-2018, web page uses "dolostone" just means that it was the preference of the person, who prepared the web page at the it was created and the USGS editors and geologists have better things to do with their time than edit thousands of web pages for consistency of terminology. That "dolomite" instead of "dolostone" is specified in what has become the standard for all geologic mapping conducted by the USGS and by the state geological surveys for the USGS, is a clear indication that in 2018 the USGS decided on mandating the use of "dolomite" instead of "dolostone" in their geologic mapping as the preferred term. Paul H. (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Cdecelle “Cave Minerals of the World” Hill, C A and Forti, P, published by NSS is considered by speleologists and geologists to be the world wide bible of speleogenesis, speleothems and cave formation. Your 'dolostone' search of NSS Journal (which publishes articles from many authors) is not considered to be the NSS view as to the name of a rock type. There are also authors which use the term Dolomite. I would consider the search of NSS Journals to be bias and not reflecting the most recognised world wide term which is Dolomite or Dolomite rock. Wikipedia is suppose to reflect international consensus not just a term used by a minority.IntoCaves (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I will point out that a dolomite appearing in Cave Minerals of the World, would make sense, since dolomite is the correct word for the mineral. Cdecelle (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

'Cave Minerals of the World', refers to "Dolomite" in the context of 'caves are formed in dolomite', which is used in the same contested as 'caves are formed in limestone', so using the logic that the book is referring to just the 'mineral' does not stand up. The book does NOT refer to 'dolostone'. 'Cave minerals of the World', deals in detail with cave development in various host rocks, including dolomite, the chemistry and everything through to speleogenisis. It is definitely considered world wide, as the most informative and accurate publication of its type. But the use of the term 'dolomite' used as a general term to describe a rock type (not just its chemistry) is widespread around the world and references to it in all manner of publications, far out number such references to dolostone.IntoCaves (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Summary so far
 * Just over a year ago in April 2019, I, MinorProphet, proposed renaming Dolomite to Dolomite (mineral), and Dolostone to Dolomite (rock). There was no dissent, and so I made the changes, although I managed to screw up royally in the process. In April 2020 Cdecelle changed the title of this article back from Dolomite (rock) to Dolostone without discussion. Although there is a certain level of approval for this title, a number of editors have spent a considerable amount of time in refuting Cdecelle's arguments by adducing a body of evidence that Dolomite, and not Dolostone, seems incontestably to be the preferred term in current English-language reliable sources. In defending his/her edits, Cdecelle has even quoted works which appear to contradict his/her own position.
 * Unless Cdecelle has any more pertinent comments (or if we just need something to keep us going through lockdown), I suggest that we attempt to wrap up this interesting and fruitful discussion with a summarising vote and make a decision to keep Dolostone, or rename to Dolomite (rock) for the foreseeable future. Thank you to everyone for your contributions.

 * Rename to Dolomite (rock) as per wholly convincing arguments by the above-named editors. MinorProphet (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Rename Definitely should be changed to 'Dolomite (rock)', to fit in with internationally recognised terminology used by the majority of bodies/institutions and publications IntoCaves (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Rename to Dolomite (rock) per WP:COMMONNAME and various arguments made above. Mikenorton (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The glaciers melt apace, but WP moves infinitesimally swifter. 'Ware move... MinorProphet (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So moved per overwhelming consensus. Mikenorton (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to be completely clear, I personally prefer the term "dolostone" but, in terms of current usage, I have no doubt that this article is now at the title it should be. This page should not be moved back to "dolostone" without clear consensus, which looks highly unlikely to happen in the near future. Mikenorton (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 * MinorProphet (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Dolomite rock
Do you suggest the article should be moved to Dolomite rock? Or why did you revert me? The current title is Dolomite and the disabiugator is (rock). If the mineral didn't have the same name, this article would be moved to "Dolomite" without the (rock) par. Christian75 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you looked over the above discussion? Several people were involved in wording the lead. Eric talk 17:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looked through it. And more caregfully now. I can't see anybody arguing it should be named Dolomite rock. One argues it should definitely not be moved to Dolomite rock. The titles "Dolomite (rock)" and "Dolomite rock" are not synonyms. The former would be moved to Dolomite if there wasn't any article with that name. The latter wouldn't. Christian75 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your take on it. I just thought the wording as it read was the result of long debate and negotiation. If I were king, it would read something like "The term dolomite, when used to describe a type of rock, is a..." But that sort of formulation of the first sentence is not well received by the Lords of Ledes. Eric talk 18:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't been sacrificing enough goats. Mais où sont les neiges d'antan? MinorProphet (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Justement, M. Villon! Eric talk 13:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * J'aime bien le son du cor, le soir, au fond des bois...
 * d'ailleurs ... Je flambe dans le brasier... MinorProphet (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Physico-chemical importance of Mg ion
This section strikes me as a good poster child for giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject. The same may be said for the entire "Caves in dolomite rock" section of which it is part; this makes up much too large a percentage of the overall article. I'm inclined to reduce the Mg ion section to a single sentence, if that, and then take some of the material out of the overly large lead and expand it into proper sections (Description, Occurrences, etc.) to give the article a little better balance.

I'm wondering, though, if there is a place in Wikipedia where the detailed material would be more appropriate and could be moved rather than simply discarded? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dolomite (rock)


text:
Rolleston, New Zealand

Rolleston (Roretana, Tauwharekākaho) is the seat and largest town in the Selwyn District, in the Canterbury region of New Zealand's South Island. It is located on the Canterbury Plains 22 km south-west of Christchurch, and is part of the wider Christchurch metropolitan area.

Rolleston is one of the fastest growing towns in New Zealand, having grown from a population of around 2,800 in 2001 to around 28,000 in 2023. The town has a population of making it New Zealand's 23rd-largest urban area and the second-largest in Canterbury (behind Christchurch).

History
Rolleston originated as a railway terminus in 1866, and is named after the Canterbury statesman William Rolleston. Rolleston, who was born in Yorkshire in 1831 and died in 1903, served as Superintendent of the Province of Canterbury from 1868 until 1876 (when central government abolished the New Zealand provinces). He also served as a Member of Parliament, holding various Cabinet portfolios.

In the 1970s, Prime Minister Norman Kirk had a dream of turning the town of fewer than 1,000 people into a city of 80,000. He nicknamed it the "Town of the Future", however the single "Town of the Future" sign has long since been removed from the entrance to Rolleston. Selwyn District Council proposed an industrial subdivision, Izone, in 2000. The council purchased rural land adjacent to the Main South Line opposite the town the following year. The Warehouse Group developed its South Island distribution centre at the Izone. The Selwyn District Council built the Toka Hāpai Selwyn Health Hub in 2021. The Health Hub was completed in May 2021, and has a Canterbury District Health Board Primary Birthing Unit as well Pacific Radiology, a physiotherapist and may have a general practice service. It was estimated to cost $14.7 million.

In late 2020, the Selwyn District Council were considering applications (private plan changes) to rezone land around Rolleston to accommodate a further 4500 houses. The Christchurch City Council was opposing this until concerns about the “significant adverse effects of downstream traffic within Christchurch” could be addressed.

In 2021, a $85 million shopping centre called Rolleston Fields was planned to be built on the old Rolleston domain on Tennyson Street. It is expected to form part of a new town centre that has been master planned by the Selwyn District Council. It is expected to include cinemas and a covered farmers market. It is planned to be built in four stages. The Selwyn District Council are planning to also build a pedestrian square to provide an "identifiable heart" of the town.

Christchurch earthquakes
Rolleston was close to the epicentre of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake being near the end of the Greendale Fault, experiencing movement two times the strength of that in Christchurch City. Residents were without power following the quake, some for more than 48 hours, and were required to boil water for weeks before services were restored. Rolleston was close to many of the aftershocks following the September quake.

Rolleston suffered low damage due to the ground having underlying stones and stable rock. For such reasons, Rolleston had not been affected by liquefaction, and only a few houses had been condemned and demolished from earthquake damage.

The 2011 Christchurch earthquake caused a minor amount of extra damage, mostly to buildings which had already been previously affected.

The population of Rolleston has expanded rapidly since the Christchurch earthquakes due to the land stability and fast tracking of building consents by the Selwyn District Council.

Amenities
Rolleston is home to Pineglades Naturist Club, the South Island's largest naturist resort. The Selwyn Aquatic Centre has five pools including a 25-metre pool with ten lanes.

Foster Park, Brookside Park and Rolleston Reserve provide sports grounds for many sports including cricket, softball, baseball, hockey, football, rugby, rugby league, athletics, tennis and netball. Foster Park also includes an off-leash dog exercise area.

The Rolleston public library, Te Ara Ātea, opened in December 2021. The $22.2 million building was designed by architects Warren and Mahoney. The two storied 2200 square metre building is expected to be the centrepiece of Rolleston's town centre. Prior to its opening the library shared premises with the Rolleston Community Centre.

The Selwyn Sports Centre, the largest sports centre in Canterbury, opened on 2 May 2021. It has eight indoor courts and an indoor walking track.

Rolleston is set to build the South Island's biggest retail complex called The Station.

Climate
The radiata pine plantations that were once a feature of this part of Canterbury have largely been replaced by more water-intensive grazing land to take advantage of the "dairy boom" of the early 21st century. Shelter belts of radiata, another significant earlier feature of the Plains (and very effective at mitigating the desiccating effects of the nor'west wind), have also been removed as they formed a barrier to the huge central-pivot irrigators that are now commonplace in the area. Rolleston is very exposed on the Canterbury Plains and is therefore slightly drier, with a more continental climate, than nearby Christchurch. There are many vineyards in the area.

The warmest month of the year is January with an average high temperature of 23 °C. The coldest month of the year occurs in July, when the average high temperature is 10 °C. Monthly rainfall ranges between an average of 33mm in January to 56mm in July. On January 26, 2021, a maximum temperature of 39.2 C was registered.

Demographics
Rolleston is described by Statistics New Zealand as a medium urban area, and covers 23.71 km2. It had an estimated population of as of  with a population density of  people per km2.

Until 1990 the town had only a few sealed streets and a population of just under 1,000. The current expansion began in the 1990s.

Before the 2023 census, the urban area had a smaller boundary, covering 22.08 km2. Using that boundary, Rolleston had a population of 17,532 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 7,926 people (82.5%) since the 2013 census, and an increase of 12,510 people (249.1%) since the 2006 census. There were 5,622 households, comprising 8,679 males and 8,850 females, giving a sex ratio of 0.98 males per female, with 4,539 people (25.9%) aged under 15 years, 3,201 (18.3%) aged 15 to 29, 8,538 (48.7%) aged 30 to 64, and 1,257 (7.2%) aged 65 or older.

Ethnicities were 86.1% European/Pākehā, 9.4% Māori, 2.5% Pasifika, 8.9% Asian, and 2.7% other ethnicities. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

The percentage of people born overseas was 23.0, compared with 27.1% nationally.

Although some people chose not to answer the census's question about religious affiliation, 58.1% had no religion, 32.2% were Christian, 0.2% had Māori religious beliefs, 1.0% were Hindu, 0.5% were Muslim, 0.6% were Buddhist and 2.0% had other religions.

Of those at least 15 years old, 2,721 (20.9%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, and 1,821 (14.0%) people had no formal qualifications. 3,420 people (26.3%) earned over $70,000 compared to 17.2% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 8,346 (64.2%) people were employed full-time, 1,824 (14.0%) were part-time, and 315 (2.4%) were unemployed.

Education
Rolleston has six full primary (year 1–8) schools:
 * Clearview Primary School is a state school with a roll of approximately students. The school opened in 2010.
 * Lemonwood Grove School is a state school with a roll of approximately  students. The school opened in 2017.
 * Rolleston School is a state school with a roll of approximately students. The school opened in 1893.
 * Rolleston Christian School is a state-integrated nondenominational Christian school with a roll of approximately students. The school opened in 2015.
 * Te Rōhutu Whio School is a state school with a roll of approximately students. The school opened in 2022.
 * West Rolleston Primary School is a state school with a roll of approximately students. The school opened in 2016.

Waitaha School is a special needs school with a roll of students.

Rolleston College is the sole secondary school in Rolleston, with a roll of approximately students. It opened on 30 January 2017, initially taking only Year 9 students and adding year levels as the 2017 Year 9 cohort moved through; the school opened to all year levels (Years 9 to 13) in January 2021. Prior to Rolleston College's opening, the nearest secondary school to Rolleston was Lincoln High School in Lincoln.

All these schools are coeducational. Rolls are as of

Bus
Three local bus routes serve Rolleston, both being part of Environment Canterbury's Metro system: route 5 connects Rolleston with central Christchurch, Linwood, and New Brighton via Templeton, Hornby and Riccarton, route 820 (Burnham to Lincoln) connects Rolleston to the nearby towns of Burnham and Lincoln, and route 85 (Rolleston to Ara Institute) an express route connecting Rolleston with Central Christchurch and Ara Institute via Christchurch Hospital.

Rail
Rolleston is the site of the railway junction between the Midland line to Greymouth and the Main South Line. The town served as a major railway junction point from the 1880s until the late 1980s, when the New Zealand government deregulated the railways, and Rolleston became a stop only for the tourist-oriented TranzAlpine rail service. In 1993 Rolleston saw one of the country's worst level-crossing accidents, when a cement mixer truck collided with a passenger train at the now-closed George Holmes Road level crossing and killed three train passengers.

The Labour Party promised to invest $100 million in Christchurch's public transport, including commuter rail between Rolleston and the city if it won the 2017 election. Andrew Little said the Rolleston to Christchurch commuter railway line would be a permanent service and the Labour Party wanted to see it up and running "within a few years". A commuter railway line would require significant central government money and land acquisitions to be achievable. The New Zealand Transport Agency expects the business case should be ready in 2021.

A commuter rail link to Rolleston is still under consideration in 2022.

Road
State Highway 1 passes through Rolleston on its route between Christchurch and Timaru. In September 2020, the extension of the Christchurch Southern Motorway was completed, connecting Rolleston and Addington at Brougham Street. This has significantly improved commuting times to Christchurch.

A two-lane overbridge has been proposed to connect residential areas of Rolleston to the industrial zone (Izone), crossing SH 1 from Rolleston Drive to Hoskyns Road. Construction is expected to commence in 2024 and be completed in late 2027. The project is expected to cost of $125 million.

Cycling
There are several cycling-friendly routes available with another under construction. Christchurch City Council major cycleway routes programme includes the South Express route, leading from Hagley Park, through Riccarton, Hei Hei and Islington to Templeton where it transitions to Selwyn District Council. From there, the route follows an off-road shared path and a quiet Manion Road until crossing State Highway 1 at Weedons Ross Road overbridge. The last mile is a sealed shared pathway and some further quiet urban streets.

Cycling between Rolleston and Lincoln follows a sealed shared path that runs beside "Lincoln Rolleston Road" and Boundary Road.

Air
The nearest major airport is Christchurch Airport, 21 km northeast of Rolleston. The town is under the approach to runway 02 at Christchurch Airport, and the airport's 50dBA noise contour extends into eastern Rolleston, which has limited development in these areas.

Government
Rolleston is part of the Selwyn electorate. The Selwyn District Council is responsible for providing local government services to Rolleston. The Selwyn District Council is based in Rolleston at 2 Norman Kirk Drive.

Prison
Rolleston Prison is located just west of the town, housing up to 260 minimum to medium security male prisoners.

Military
Burnham Military Camp is located about 3 kilometres west from the town centre. Burnham was a major staging post for the NZDF and overseas military forces during the Christchurch Earthquakes.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rolleston, New Zealand


text:
Ragnvald Skrede

Ragnvald Skrede (24 April 1904 – 16 August 1983) was a Norwegian author, journalist, literature critic and translator.

Biography
Ragnvald Skrede was born in Vågå in Oppland county, Norway. Skrede was the youngest of seven children. He was a student at Elverum teacher school (1921–24). In 1928, he was hired as a teacher and sexton in Rauland, in Telemark. He studied at the University of Oslo (1928–1934). In 1934, he became a teacher in Vågå. In the postwar years, Skrede worked as a journalist and literary critic for Verdens Gang and Dagbladet and a theater critic for Bondebladet.

Skrede was 45 years old when he began his writing in the year 1949. As a poet, he often used the classic and permanent stanza forms. His authorship was humanistic and characterized by historic knowledge. Ragnvald Skrede was a Norwegian member of the jury for the Nordic Council's Literature Prize from 1969. He was chairman for literary advice of the Norwegian Novelist Association (Den norske forfattarforening) 1970–72. He received Dobloug Prize for Literature in 1967 and the Norwegian Cultural Council Award in 1969.

Prizes and recognition

 * Norwegian Critics Prize for Literature (Kritikerprisen) 1952, for I åpen båt på havet
 * Sunnmørsprisen, 1962, for Frå kjelde til sjø
 * Sokneprest Alfred Andersson-Ryssts fond 1963
 * Dobloug Prize 1967

title: Ragnvald Skrede


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Rhiannon

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Mistress Rhiannon
Nothing but a copvio on a nonexistant page about a big-breasted whore who considers herself a living incarnate vampire sent here to destroy Earth. Freak. CyborgOrder 01:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - how can you have a copyvio of a nonexistent page? Grutness...  wha?  01:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The link in the copyvio template is working. Not quite sure what the nominator meant by that. - Thatdog 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. The only version of this article was sent to copyvio 15 days ago.  Why is it even still here?  Thatdog 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; nn, cp | Celcius 02:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable --Dysepsion 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- Although a Vampire chick sounds kinda hot and kinky! --''Antonio Suck my...blood Martin" 11:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Osomec 23:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Agamemnon2 10:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn Klonimus 13:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Frang Bardhi

Frang Bardhi (Latin: Franciscus Blancus, Francesco Bianchi, 1606–1643) was an Albanian Catholic bishop and Old Albanian author. Bardhi is best known as an author of the early eras of Albanian literature. He served as Bishop of Sapë (1635–1644).

Life
Bardhi was born in Kallmet or Nënshat in the northern Albanian Zadrima region near Lezhë. He came from a family consisting of many figures high in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and state officials or military commanders of the Republic of Venice. His uncle was Bishop of Sapa and Sarda. He studied theology in Italy. On 17 December 1635, Francesco Bianchi was appointed during the papacy of Pope Urban VIII as Bishop of Sapë. On 30 March 1636, he was consecrated bishop by Ciriaco Rocci, Cardinal-Priest of San Salvatore in Lauro, with Giovanni Battista Altieri, Bishop Emeritus of Camerino, and Ottavio Broglia, Bishop of Asti, serving as co-consecrators.

Bardhi is remembered as the author of the first Albanian dictionary Dictionarium latino-epiroticum (Latin-Albanian dictionary) published in Rome in 1635, comprising 5,640 entries. Its appendix contains a list of 113 proverbs, phrases, and idioms, some of which are translations from other languages into Albanian with the vast majority being collected from the Albanian folklore.

Bardhi also wrote a biography of George Kastrioti Skanderbeg, called The Apology of Scanderbeg published in Venice in 1636. The Apology of Scanderbeg was a polemic against Slavic Catholic priest Ivan Tomko Mrnavić, who claimed that Kastrioti was of Slav origin. Bardhi also complained that the Albanian language "was being lost and degenerating" under the blows of foreign occupiers, and in order to preserve it he saw himself contributing to the missing of rising the national pride between Albanians.

From 1637 on, Bardhi submitted reports in Italian and Latin to the Congregation of the Propaganda Fide in Rome which contain a mine of information about his diocese, about political developments, about Albanian customs and about the structure and position of the Catholic Church in Ottoman-occupied Albania.

title: Frang Bardhi


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters with ADHD

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional characters with ADHD
Delete, I suppose this qualifies as original research, or at least is highly interpretive. I'll admit in advance to possible ignorance: maybe these characters have been fictionally diagnosed with ADHD, but I'm sceptical. -Splash 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - very similar to the 'list of famous people with ADHD' deleted recently - speculative, original research and silly. Petesmiles 01:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above without positive verification. — Lomn | Talk 01:28:27, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * Keep Fictional diagnoses are pretty common especially in situation comedies involving children. Some of the claims, although not currently sourced, are at least plausible.  I have added the character Justin Cobb, from the movie Thumbsucker, which is verifiable and sourced. If that doesn't convince, I'll add more until you holler "Uncle". --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Non encyclopedic | Celcius 02:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Although author needs to add reasoning for each entry in the list. Might better fit under article about ADHD, though. Until it becomes a longer list.
 * Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep any verifiable content. Pburka 03:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though if the author chooses to come back and document the sources for all of these diagnoses, I will be way less likely to think this is a BS article. JDoorjam 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Hamster Sandwich. SchmuckyTheCat 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the verifiable part(s). Kappa 06:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as Kappa. Soo 11:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Deleting all but the verifiable leaves this list one person long. Sdedeo 16:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep After removing two entries which I'm pretty sure don't qualify, I'm suspicious of the other characters listed. Wouldn't this be better if moved to "List of fictional characters diagnosed with ADHD"? Leaving it this vague seems like an invitation for extensive POV. As Tony Sidaway pointed out diagnoses are pretty common, but more importantly, they're verifiable. --TheMidnighters 15:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - How do we know these guys have ADHD, it's all going to be unverifiable POV guesswork - Hahnchen 15:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . There are very few (possibly zero?) fictional characters appearing in notable fiction that are explicitly diagnosed as ADHD. What will happen with a list like this, of course, is that armchair psychologists will diagnose fictional characters on their own. Sdedeo 15:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. OK, Tony has convinced me. BUT, I strongly strongly suggest that boilerplate be added in the article to explain that only "in world" diagnoses count (i.e., the character has to be identified within the book as ADHD. By a (in the book) authority.) Sdedeo 02:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whil it may be useful article the name "List of ..." and its current format just invites jokers to insert any crap into it. Such result would be misleading. Article as "ADHD in fiction" with details on every character may be useful, current "list" not. Pavel Vozenilek 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, I warned you.  I've added two children's books with main characters diagnosed (fictionally, of course! but within the book) with ADHD.  This could be a useful list for people interested in the portrayal of psychiatric illnesses and conditions in fiction. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And another two. Two books for younger children intended to explain the disorder to them. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added four more which are all documented on Wikipedia and externally. Pburka 20:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is similar to List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum, which recently survived VfD when all speculative characters were removed. Informal diagnoses should be removed as speculation. ManoaChild 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the verifiable parts. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Nandesuka 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Which part of the article do you consider original research? Every character in this list is identified as having ADHD by the respective authors or writers. Pburka 23:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Name an item on that article about which it can be said that the diagnosis of ADHD is original research, and I personally will removed it with great delight--better yet, remove it yourself!  And then change your vote to keep, if only because without breaking a sweat I've added nine indisputable characters who within the context of the fictional works were diagnosed as having ADHD.  Well some of them were ADHD-diagnosed Jumpy Elephants and whatnot, but that's in the nature of psychiatric literature for children. --Tony Sidaway Talk  23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not original research unless inclusion requires some element of interpretation, and as such I'd support TheMidnighters' suggesgted name change. Flowerparty  talk 23:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need that kind of propaganda on this encyclopedia.Sorry if this becomes a rant. Unsigned vote by Z.Spy (talk • contribs) 2005-08-21 02:33:11 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Tony Sidaway. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:33:56 Z
 * Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 10:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep fictional mental illness. Klonimus 13:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly change this into a category attached to fictional characters noteworthy enough to merit their own article. Caerwine 17:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the page should include only the characters that are actually diagnosed. Superm401 | Talk 23:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment the list as it stands now is considerably different than the original list nominated, all but one of the items listed have been removed because they were unverified, and the remaining one has been verified. Many new, verified entries are listed, and there is a header explaining exactly what is being listed (in order to avoid POV and OR). --TheMidnighters 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, funny though. Radiant_ >|< 09:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep CanadianCaesar 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There are many similar lists. See Category:Lists of fictional characters. -- Reinyday
 * Strong Keep... that list is really interesting. Voyager640 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but change the title to "...diagnosed with ADHD." Penelope D 01:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15c

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

15c
Promo, not encyclopedic Wyss 01:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; nn, non encyclopedic | Celcius 02:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --GraemeL (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn Gblaz 18:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn CLW 09:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15c


text:
Chungar

Chungar may refer to:

 * Chungar Lake or Chungará Lake, a lake in the Lauca National Park, Chile
 * Chungar Mine (-11.12417°N, -76.53222°W) in Peru. Its camp was destroyed and part of the underground workings flooded by a landslide into/tsunami from Yanawayin Lake in March 1971
 * Eslām Chūngar, a town in Northern Afghanistan

title: Chungar


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 20

Category:Scofield Mine Disaster

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Should be deleted as unnecessary and useless, and unlikely to grow. Text from the stub article of same name but lowercase Scofield mine disaster mostly copied into here, and that article isn't even categorized here. Only other entry is town of Scofield, Utah, with an even shorter mention of this accident. Article was already in parent category and not in this subcategory. Gene Nygaard 22:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if needed in future can be re-created with proper caps.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Elton John

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Elton John is an item, not a category. See Category:Gay_musicians for the confusion this causes Craigbutz. Article Elton John already exists. 21:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep most of the other big musicians have categories to hold all of their sub-cats "albums" "songs" etc.. Just go looking through the categories, they are easy to find. As far as the other category, his article is an article and the cat is a sub-cat, just the way it is. Although you could just put the article there and not the cat.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  23:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Who. siafu 15:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agreed. James F. (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Who. TexasAndroid 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. Osomec 00:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2007 in politics

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This should be deleted for the following reasons:
 * The category is empty.
 * The category is too far in the future to have any use currently. 2007 is 2 years away.

IanManka 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though the five day period for votes has not expired yet, it does not appear that many people will vote on this CfD. With a tally of 1 weak keep, 1 2 keeps, and 1 strong keep (see discussion below), the consensus on this category would be to keep this article. IanManka 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC), later signed by IanManka 01:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) when he updated the vote tally.

 * COMMENT it's probably a space filler to precede Category:2008 in politics 132.205.45.110 18:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak KEEP. The 2008 category has a small number of things in it, and for organizational sake I'm not sure it makes sense to keep 2008, but delete 2007.  TexasAndroid 19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This category definitely is useful and can easily be filled. A few examples:
 * Scottish parliamentary election, 2007
 * Welsh Assembly Election 2007
 * French presidential election, 2007
 * Parliamentary election in Ontario
 * Presidential Election in Argentina
 * Australian federal election, 2007

Aecis 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay then, should I put out a request to populate this category? Apparently not many articles have any current use for this category -- couldn't we just recreate it later? IanManka 22:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
 * Not many articles in the Category:2008 in politics have any current use either, but that's no reason to delete it. What matters is whether the category is relevant (I think it is), whether it is well-defined (I think it is), whether it can be filled (I think it can) and whether it follows the existing hierarchy (I think it does). I think the way to go forward from here is to add the 4 articles I mentioned above (Scotland, Wales, France and Australia) to the category, create articles about Ontario, Argentina and the Netherlands (we've got general elections in 2007 as well), and then (as you said) put out a request for population, in an attempt to create and/or find more articles. Aecis 11:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, I make the conclusion that we should keep this article now. So, I don't know how to do that with me being the nominator. Sorry about that folks. IanManka 18:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This latest comment comes down to a withdrawal of the nomination. Besides, there have now been three votes: 1 weak keep (TexasAndroid), 1 keep (you) and 1 strong keep (yours truly). I don't think there will be many more votes before the term closes, so I think it's safe to say that there is a consensus to keep. I'm not an admin though, so I can't close the voting process. When I can find the time, I'll start creating new articles and filling the category. Is that fine with you? Aecis 18:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, six bullet points deep. Whenever you do find the time (no rush), you can populate the category -- it'd be perfectly fine with me. Thank you for showing me uses for this category. I didn't realize those elections would come up. Sorry for any inconvience! IanManka 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As above. Osomec 00:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Manakins

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Tagged 20 August by JohnCastle, reason redundant. Just listing here. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument. siafu 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Isn't "Manakins" spelled "Manekins"? Still, per nominator, delete if the previous is not the condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManka (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 August 2005
 * I'm not sure if they were talking about manakin the bird or manikin the "model". ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If it were for the model, it should be, to match the article. Grutness...  wha?  00:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ok its the bird :) I guess it would be redundant with Category:Pipridae, since thats where manakin is cat'd. So delete ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Natural history of china

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Natural history of China. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides the bad capitalization, it should be deleted considering the main article on Natural history even calls it an obsolete term, covered by Category:Geography of China, Category:Chinese environment and Category:Chinese culture among others. It had two entries which I switched to Geography. - choster 17:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into category:natural history of China. — Instantnood 16:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Instantnood, if that one article fits. Then if the merge cat is not appropriate, it can be Cfd'd later.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Natural history of China. -- Reinyday, 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Central to Category:Central, Hong Kong

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  03:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to match article name Central, Hong Kong. Tagged 17 August by Icairns, just listing here. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 17:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Take care of all of it! Category:Places in Hong Kong ~ SchmuckyTheCat 19:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC) ~

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Weird Al Yankovic albums and Category:Weird Al Yankovic songs

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic albums Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs, respectively (note the quotation marks). tregoweth 16:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep "Weird Al Yankovic" constitutes a stage name, IMHO, and should be treated like band names. siafu 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP, won't double-quotes potentially cause navigation problems for some people? 132.205.45.110 18:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per siafu. feydey 13:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename if the category doesn't have quotation marks around "Weird Al." '"Weird Al" Yankovic' is his true stage name, 'Weird Al Yankovic' (no quotes) is not.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanManka (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the name is easier without the double-quotes. Radiant_ >|< 08:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename both. "Weird Al" is his stage name.  A rename of these two categories is consistent with Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic, Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic, and "Weird Al" Yankovic.  --Kbdank71 16:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Reinyday

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Films by director

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename however discussion moved to unresolved for comment on renaming all in parent category to new format. Films directed by Foo. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There are 11 subcats in this parent category (Category:Films by director) that imo need renaming: Aecis 14:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Bareja films --> Category:Stanislaw Bareja films or Category:Stanisław Bareja films.
 * Category:Bergman films --> Category:Ingmar Bergman films
 * Category:Eastwood films --> Category:Clint Eastwood films
 * Category:Godard films --> Category:Jean-Luc Godard films
 * Category:Has films --> Category:Wojciech Has films
 * Category:Kawalerowicz films --> Category:Jerzy Kawalerowicz films
 * Category:Kurosawa films --> Category:Akira Kurosawa films
 * Category:Miyazaki films --> Category:Hayao Miyazaki films
 * Category:Truffaut films --> Category:François Truffaut films
 * Category:Wajda films --> Category:Andrzej Wajda films
 * Category:Films by Billy Wilder --> Category:Billy Wilder films
 * Rename all per nom, with exception to Category:Bareja films, I would think the second spelling with the diacritics would be proper.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  17:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Films directed by Foo as discussed below. Sorry for everyone who agreed previoulsly :)  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all, second what Who said. :) —Tarnas 17:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all as per new format, below: "Films directed by..." —Tarnas 19:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per Who. siafu 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that "films directed by" is clearer without causing any problems. siafu 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per Who. K1Bond007 19:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the proposed format is widely used, wouldn't Category:director-directed films or Category:Films directed by director be less ambiguous? Many of these directors are also producers, actors, or screenwriters. Note Category:Films_by_star for example.- choster 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename but not to that format. Choster's point is critical; just consider Clint Eastwood for the canonical example. I'll suggest Category:Films by director (thus implying that the Billy Wilder name is already correct.  My justification for this is that "by" is the recognized English signifier for a director's work (consider the beginning of every movie:  "A film by so-and-so". (see comment below) Nandesuka 23:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The credit "A film by Foo" (or the alternative, "a Foo film") is far from a univerally-recognized and favoured English signifier for a director's work, actually—indeed, it's been a very contentious issue, especially in recent years. The various Hollywood guilds (most notably the Writers' and Producers', I think) have been campaigning against it for some time, arguing it implies that the director is the sole creative influence on the film, as opposed to it being a team effort.  Today, it isn't attached to all films by a longshot, and was used quite infrequently in earlier decades.  (It started out reserved strictly for auteur directors, and then notable directors, and then by means of mee-too-ism it quickly spread so that every director of every bad slasher film in the 1980s wanted one.)  I believe that during the last WGA strike one of demands was that it be banned altogether, and I think part of the settlement was a watered-down comprimise in which there'd be a new, more restrictive process for who gets to use it overseen by the DGA.  In any case, I don't think we should perpetuate it on Wikipedia. -The Tom 01:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename according to Nandesuka and Choster. Very good points. Courtland 00:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename but not to that format. I'll echo Choster's observation as well.  Category:Films directed by Akira Kurosawa, Category:Films directed by Clint Eastwood etc., while a little mouthier, is unambiguous and NPOV per my above point.  We might also want to look at putting the subcats of Category:Films by star into the format Category:Films starring Sophia Loren, Category:Films starring Elvis Presley etc. -The Tom 01:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - "A film by" is generally (although not exclusively) used where the director is also the writer. I have no objection to "Stanley Kubrick films", for example, where the director is a recognised autuer. But if we're going to have categories for every Hollywood hack (as is likely) then Films directed by John McTiernan would be preferable, especially, as has already been said, "Clint Eastwood films" "Robert Redford films" etc would present problems. JW 11:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Add Comment - "A film by" is also used relatively rarely vis-a-vis the totality of world film product even with many non-"hacks". It has been most common in France historically, with art-house "indies" in the US, and in the past decade of commercial film as "auteurism" takes over even the conventions of crediting; but such luminaries as Eisenstein or (to the best of my memory) Hitchcock, or John Ford or Howard Hawks or Fritz Lang or Akira Kurosawa, ever had their products postured as "a film by...", in realization of the collaborative and collective nature of filmmaking 12.73.194.22 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename but not to that format - the discussion here has convinced me that Films directed by Alfred Hitchcock is in fact the correct format. I withdraw my earlier suggestion of "Films by Alfred HItchcock". Nandesuka 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The consensus seems to be to renaming the categories to "Films directed by ..." Because of that, I would like to propose renaming every category in the Category:Films by director according to that format. Aecis 15:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -The Tom 21:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Elections in Macedonia and Category:Political parties in Macedonia

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

These need to be moved to Category:Elections in the Republic of Macedonia and Category:Political parties in the Republic of Macedonia to follow our naming convention for (FY)RoM articles. --Joy [shallot]   11:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 18:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * COMMENT was that Bulgar/Slav/Skopje/FYRoM/RoM/Macedonia ever resolved? 132.205.45.110 18:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a note on the categories in question that covers the dispute.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. - Darwinek 09:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Luxembourgeois politicians to Category:Luxembourg politicians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename. "Luxembourgeois" is not an English word, and looks like some sort of political joke, since "bourgeois" has a specific pejorative meaning in English which it doesn't have in French. "Luxembourg" has no specific adjectival form in English so the category should be called Category:Luxembourg politicians. I notice that "Luxembourgish" is also used sometimes but this is very artificial. I should add that the use of the French form is inappropriate also because French is only one of Luxembourg's three official languages (the German form would be Luxemburgische). Adam 03:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * fixed header and category wiki in nomination ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename as suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 17:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Politicians of Luxembourg. siafu 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Luxembourg politicians to follow other similar categories. K1Bond007 19:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. See Category:Politicians of European nations for the current precedent.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional gays and lesbians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Fictional LGBT characters

Rename. The relevant category for people is Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the category should follow suit and be renamed to either Category:Fictional gays, lesbians or bisexuals or Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual fictional characters. If this is renamed, the subcategory should also be renamed accordingly. -Sean Curtin 03:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this been here before? I have to check the archives to see any relevant discussion. Shouldn't it be more like Category:Fictional LGBT characters, to match the existing sub-cats?   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  05:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the subcategories was CfDed with no consensus. IMHO we should be trying to match the naming of "Category:Fictional Foo" to "Category:Foo" where applicable.  -Sean Curtin 00:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I see your point, I was actually referring to the LGBT sub-cats naming schema, but these should all be standarized. But if I look at Category:Fictional characters by nature, it seems that Category:Fictional LGBT characters would fit that schema fine.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * rename to Category:Fictional LGBT characters as per Who. 132.205.45.110 18:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional LGBT characters--DrBat 01:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional LGBT characters for reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:45, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional LGBT characters. -- Reinyday

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Croatian people in WWII

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Now defunct. All articles moved to Category:Croatian World War II people, in line with naming of other subcategories in Category:World War II people by nationality. GregorB 01:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete now. Pavel Vozenilek 04:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choster (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 August 2005
 * Delete ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Founders of religions or sects

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete - POV. There are already categories for people associated with religions either as leaders or as notable for a religion. Some of these listedf did not found a religion, the religion was founded after they died ≈ jossi ≈ 03:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * delete, I think a category:founders of religions would be better. How about a category:charismatic religious leaders (see charismatic authority? Andries 06:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - POV, per nom. I don't think the alternate naming would be any better, unless someone has diffinitive proof on every religion.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The difference between a sect and a religion is not clear to those who study religions. -- metta, The Sunborn  22:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. siafu 15:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Language-specific OS distributions to Category:Language-specific Linux distributions
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 22:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Language-specific Linux distributions. All current members of the category are Linux distributions; a broader category can be created to be the parent later; in the meantime restricting this one to Linux distributions allows it to be a clean sub-category of Category:Linux distributions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, Pavel Vozenilek 04:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Mowbray College

Mowbray College was an independent, selective, co-educational day school, located in Kurunjang, Victoria and Caroline Springs, Victoria, Australia.

The school had three campuses. The Patterson campus, located at Kurunjang, taught students from preschool to Year Twelve. The Brookside and Town Centre campuses were both located in Caroline Springs. The Brookside campus was used for students in pre-school to Year Six, while Town Centre was for secondary students (Years Seven to Twelve). The Brookside campus was located at the Brookside Learning Centre, which hosted common facilities (such as administration facilities, library, gymnasium, arts rooms, and science rooms) shared by Mowbray, the Brookside campus of Caroline Springs College and Christ the Priest Catholic Primary School.

Mowbray College was an International Baccalaureate school, having offered the IB Primary Years Programme and IB Middle Years Programme since the end of 2007, and the IB Diploma Programme since May 2008.

Mowbray was one of thirteen Australian participants in the Round Square Conference of Schools. On 28 May 2012, college board chairperson, Tracey MacKenzie, told a meeting of parents, staff and students that the college had debts of more than $18 million and that emergency funding of $4 million was needed to allow the college to operate until the end of the year, or the board would have to consider entering into voluntary administration. Subsequently, the school did go into voluntary administration on 30 May 2012.

On 2 June 2012 the administrators announced that the school would be closed on 6 June for all students except those currently studying VCE or International Baccalaureate subjects. A grant of $1 million from the State Government would allow those students to continue at the school until the end of second term on 22 June.

On 15 October 2012 it was announced that the three closed campuses had been sold. Heathdale Christian College in Werribee bought the Kurunjang site for an undisclosed sum, the Caroline Springs town centre campus was bought for $6.7 million by Intaj Khan, the chief executive of the Western Institute of Technology, and Grace Children's Services bought the Brookside campus for $3.3 million.

title: Mowbray College


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad0

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ad0
Delete judging from the Google hits, Ad0 is the moniker of someone who did some hacking once. Nn.-Splash 01:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC) End VFD. page was apparently speedy deleted - Stoph 00:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hamster Sandwich 03:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad0


text: User talk:70.117.242.51

title: User talk:70.117.242.51


text:
Talk:Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, North Yorkshire

From WP:RfD:

 * Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, North Yorkshire → Holme-on-Spalding-Moor -- There is only 1 Holme-on-Spalding-Moor in the world, hence the North Yorkshire, or England disambiguation is not needed. Also, Holme-on-Spalding Moor isn't even in North Yorkshire, it's in the East Riding of Yorkshire ! Hahnchen 13:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies - Instead of moving the article from Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, North Yorkshire to Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, I've cut and paste the article over and put a redirect in, which I now know to be wrong. Newbie mistake, won't happen again :( Hahnchen 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the history (but it's a fair amount of work, so I hope everyone else will learn from your mistake and not do the same :-). Noel (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There do seem to be about 80 web sites that refer to it as "Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, North Yorkshire", e.g. this one. Is this a remnant of a previous organization of the county, or what? Noel (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)