User talk:Laurel Lodged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

County Dublin[edit]

Your thesis that County Dublin is a "former" county is a misrepresentation of the facts. The page is about County Dublin in general, not specifically about the administrative unit that existed prior to 1994. I refer you to the page on County Cork, which is also about the county in general, and not specifically the County Council administrative unit. The county council administrative unit is given a sub heading within the article. Furthermore the County Cork page references Cork City, which as you may know is not part of the administrative county at all. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between how these two pages are being treated. I suggest you find some more nuanced language than "County Dublin is a former county". Perhaps "... is a former administrative county" would suffice in this case. For further clarity I refer you to [1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.239.203 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There is along and tedious history with this page and all other Irish County pages. In short, the current state of the page reflects the best consensus that could be arrived at. If you feel that you've something new and compelling to bring to the party, bring it to the talk page. Until then, stop edit warring. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

St Jude's[edit]

Hi, regarding St Judes; I searched EPPI and Google books; it looks like St Jude's was created out of St James' some time between 1861 and 1867. The OSI mapviewer's 25-inch maps are mostly from later than the 6-inch maps (1880-1910) and the 25-inch gives "St Jude's" (though I had to zoom in to the maximum to bring it up, which means you can't see all the letters at once). jnestorius(talk) 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks for your labours. So must all 6 townlands of St Jude's be attributed to Castleknock or only some of them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Final warning of indefinite block[edit]

Stop PLEASE STOP.
Yesterday I posted this warning at AN/I that I would block anyone making further edits to change, rename or otherwise affect categorisation of GAA-related articles. You made several further edits after that time and were it not for the fact that you have not edited for some hours, I would now be blocking you. However please understand that if you make any further edits of this sort, I will block you indefinitely even if you are not actively editing (ie even if I only become aware of your edits some hours later). Note that indefinite does not mean permanent, and I or any other admin would happily unblock on an assurance from you that you will not make any further edits of that sort until a consensus is reached. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You will note the time of my peace offer above ("If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too."). I posted that immediately after reading the ANI thread. You will also note that all the GAA edits that I made were prior to the offer and prior to reading the ANI notice. So there was no intentional breech of the warning. You should also note that the peace offer was thrown back in my face. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your peace offer did not neutralise my warning not to edit further. You made further edits after I had expressly warned you and others not to do so. Please don't continue or I will block you, as I will anyone else who does the same. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
All I was saying was that at the time of the edits I was not aware of the warning. It did not appear on my talk page at the time of the edits. Frankly, I'm grateful for the respite that it will bring to the 3 of us. But I am not hopeful that either of the other 2 will get over their ICANTHEARYOU problem anytime soon. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the reason I didn't block you - my warning was a general one made at AN/I and I accept that you hadn't seen it. If you and everyone else can now simply cease fire until the terms of an armistice are agreed, nobody need be blocked or banned and we can all get back to writing the encyclopaedia. Good luck! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Much appreciate your input on the Ireland project talk page on the "formula" for settlements/parishes on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Category: Southern Levant[edit]

Hey Laurel Lodged,

I'm currently working with you and Oncenawhile on the Southern Levant Category. I see you had originally described that category, and recently changed your description to be more in line with oncenawhile's proposal. To my eyes, the new description is very vaguely worded, while the original was concrete. What was the reason for changing it? "The history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant", which is what was originally written was clear and to the point, and I think worked really well. To go into more detail, it's important that this category, which describes an important historical region in scholarly research, be well-defined and maintained. Thanks! Drsmoo (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: It seemed to be the one that had the least controversy, although was not as thorough. Let's give it a trial for a while. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TD categories[edit]

Hi, its a good idea to refine the TD categories by party and you have been doing. I have taken the liberty of using TDs in the name, e.g. Category:Progressive Democrats TDs instead of Teachtaí Dála. I think this is more succinct, easier to spell, easier to pronounce and follows the current convention for MPs, e.g. parent is Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by political party and all the sub cats have MPs in the title, e.g. Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs. Snappy (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown[edit]

Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand[edit]

Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. gadfium 19:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Current monarchies[edit]

There was no consensus to delete Category:Current monarchies in the last deletion discussion.

Please put a link to a superseding discussion on the category's talk page so everyone knows why you emptied the category, or, if no such discussion has taken place, please:

  • Consider adding sub-categories to the category, but only if those sub-categories are true sub-categories, and
  • Restore any articles that rightfully belong in Category:Current monarchies and which are not in a sub-category back to that category.

This link from archive.org may be of some help.

If you believe the category is not needed, please nominate it for discussion, but please do the cleanup/restoration work first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not deleted it. I will consider adding true sub-categories to the category if I find any. I will restore any articles that rightfully belong in it. None of the articles that I moved fits this description; all are now diffused to their proper lowest categorical home. I already nominated it and so will not be doing so again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: This is now empty after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13#Monarchies. Moreover, I have nominated Category:Former constitutional monarchies for conversion to a list. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Finglas (civil parish), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M50 motorway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident and his page moves[edit]

Thanks for the Chicbyaccident (talk) heads-up. It turns out he's been moving a lot mor than just the 4 pages we noticed. You can move them back too; it's too much for me to do alone and he's refusing to revert his own changes. A note from you on his talk page might help too. Can you help out? Rockypedia (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Northern Ireland, 2015-present[edit]

It is not customary to include the date name in categories of present entities as you have done in Category:Districts of Northern Ireland, 2015-present. I request that you propose this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland before proceeding any further. jnestorius(talk) 13:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anglican and Lutheran saints[edit]

I was going to isolate pre-Reformation Anglican and Lutheran saints just in order to have a more structured discussion about them. This is not as straightforward as ancient and early medieval saints with respect to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Nearly all ancient and early medieval saints are recognized by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches so removing the denominational categories did not do any harm. But here, not all high and late medieval saints are recognized by any of the Anglican or Lutheran churches, which poses a categorization problem for articles. For example, with Anselm of Canterbury we might remove all denominational saints categories, including the Roman Catholic one, and just leave it to Christian saint. But other very similar saints who are not recognized by the Anglican and Lutheran churches, could be kept as Roman Catholic. That seems inconsistent. So I'm not saying we should keep the both Anglican and Lutheran pre-Reformation categories by all means, but at least we should think a bit about how the alternative may look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a high or late medieval saint not recognized by any of the Anglican or Lutheran churches? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?[edit]

You have reverted two edits I made today on the pages Ormond (surname) and Osraige, but offered no explanation as to why. These edits specifically: [2] [3]. Why have you done this? If you don't respond promptly, I'll just redo the edits. --Hibernian (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Southern Levant has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Southern Levant, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:S-par/ie/oi[edit]

Hi Laurel Lodged

At TfD March 3, you nominated {{S-par/ie/oi}} for deletion.

I reckoned that if the succession boxes were used as designed, then the real problems which you identified would be avoided. So I tested it on a series of biogs of TDs, and posted an explanation at the TfD discussion, complete with links to the examples I created.

This seems so far to have persuaded most other participants in the discussion, but it would be helpful to have some input from the nominator. If you have a few minutes, would you be kind enough to respond at TfD with your thoughts?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castleknock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish constitutional referendums, 1968[edit]

Please note that you are expected to create a new AfD page, not to re-use the old one. Reusing the old one drives bots crazy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Lithuania[edit]

Hi, I'm listifying Category:Former constitutional monarchies, and have finished except for Grand Duchy of Lithuania which you added into that category last year: [4]. The article doesn't seem to mention the constitutional aspect of its monarchy; do you have a citation for it? – Fayenatic London 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you find one, please add it to the list in Constitutional_monarchy#Former_constitutional_monarchies. Meanwhile, I'll delete the category. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Christian liturgy by denomination has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Christian liturgy by denomination, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catholic (term) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <blockquote>Since the word [[Christian Church|Ecclesia]] is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, ''And when he had thus
  • ref>[http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P26.HTM Catechism of the Catholic Church, 750]</ref>-->

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy rename nomination[edit]

Could you add your reply in this discussion? Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Roscelese. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Greco-Roman to Classical antiquity[edit]

Hi, would you mind striking your "oppose" at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#Category:Greco-Roman_world. for clarity? You have retracted it in words, but the original bold head-word remains. – Fayenatic London 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa[edit]

Note that I combined your eight nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 4#Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa to a single one. Please review the combined rationale to make sure it is like you intended it to be. You may also revert, if you want the categories to be discussed individually, but other editors probably don't want to discuss the same thing eight times in a row. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Southern Levant[edit]

As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Please see the parent category at Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. The scope has been there for many years, it is not one made up just Ireland related articles.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

DHC within right reverted the IP Laurel so the reimposition of those categories should be discussed at talk, otherwise the article should stay to the version prior to the IPs contested edit not DHC's. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Double Dutch[edit]

I have suggested change for Category:Sportspeople by province in the Netherlands and Category:People by province in the Netherlands. As an expert on such categories, could you take a look at the discussions? gidonb (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Levant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Church of Ireland, Wales categories[edit]

The category Category:19th-century Church of Ireland church buildings already existed (from 2011) when I created the 18th-century category to match it. Although the parent categories Category:19th-century Anglican churches etc. had been changed from “church buildings” to “churches” the subcategories for Ireland and Wales had not been changed. Hence I also created 20th century and 18th-century categories to match Category:19th-century Church in Wales church buildings (created 2015). They could be nominated for speedy renaming if you think so. Hugo999 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Butler dates[edit]

Hey there. I am trying to increase the consistency of the display of birth and death dates in biographical articles. My edits are simple housekeeping edits that do not involve adding new information to the article. The birth and death dates are already present in the article in some way. I've gone through hundreds of articles recently, and it is always possible I made a error. Could you link the article(s) in question? Omegastar (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - my bad. I didn't notice that the extra dates were elsewhere in the articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Luxembourg[edit]

Hi; I see the Luxembourg discussion is closed. Regarding your comment, which I didn't get a chance to read until it was closed: the reason I think it's a valid criticism is because people can search for the words "Luxembourg" + "city" without an intent of searching for the City of Luxembourg/Luxembourg City. It's the same reason we get a bunch of hits for "England" + "city" even though there is no city referred to commonly as "England City". Anyway, moot now I guess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Roman Forts[edit]

Under the new organization, isn't Roman forts still entirely unnecessary? If we have it down to types, shouldn't it be removed? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But it is only now redundant. A lot of work (by me) was necessary to make it redundant. @Iazyges: You can submit "upmerge to Roman fortification in Foo" proposals if you like. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Laurel Award[edit]

A Barnstar!
Laurel Award

I, Iazyges, hereby award you this Laurel Award, for your contributions toward Roman fortification categories.

"Grandfather" categories[edit]

Will you kindly explain why you say that the categories

Artillery]]
Naval armour]]

and

Ironclad warships]]

are grandfather categories in the context of the Fortress of Humaitá article, and hence deleted by you? Grandfathers of precisely which grandchildren categories already listed in the article?

Likewise, please explain why in the article Passage of Humaitá you deleted the categories

Geopolitics]]
International relations theory]]
Political geography]]
Artillery]]
Naval armour]]?

Why do you say these are grandfather categories? Of what grandchildren? Ttocserp 13:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

They are "grandfather" categories because they are at the top of a structured tree. One never places articles at the top of the tree as it would soon become unreadable and unnavigable. Articles are always diffused to the lowest leaf of a tree. Clicking the lowest category allows you to work upwards until you eventually get to the highest point of the tree. This usually has few articles and consists mostly of son / grandson and great-grandson categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your exposition of the principle. What I am still asking you for, however, is why you say the principle applies in these particular cases. Thus
A. In the Passage of Humaitá article:-
1. What justifies the insertion of the non-existent (and illiterate) category "Fortifications in Parguay"?
2. What justifies the deletion of the category "Geopolitics" -- i.e. what more specific category (if any) did you replace it with in this article?
3. What justifies the deletion of the category "International relations theory" -- i.e. what more specific category did you replace it with in this article?
4. ... and so on for all the other deleted categories I asked you about above?
B. The same for the Fortress of Humaitá article. Ttocserp 15:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not delete any categories from the page Fortress of Humaitá again without discussing it on the Talk page for that article. Ttocserp 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


Dear Laurel Lodge. I believe you are not being responsive to real concerns I have, possibly because I didn't explain them well enough. I'll try further.
(a) Do you and I agree it's desirable to avoid grandfather categories whenever that's possible? I believe we do. Therefore, it is always desirable to delete a grandfather category provided it is replaced by its appropriate subcategories . Agreed?
(b) That must mean, replaced by all of its appropriate subcategories – not just one of them. A "branch" may bear two or more "leaves" that are in fact relevant. Now, in a given WP Article, a grandfather category may embrace more than one subcategory: one subcategory may be appropriate to one part of the Article's subject-matter; another subcategory to a different part. It's therefore important, when deleting the grandfather category, to replace it with both (or if there are more than two, all of them). Do we agree that principle too?
(c) A third principle is that it may happen, albeit rarely, that a grandfather category is the only existing category available that classifies a subject-matter. In other words, there are no existing subcategories into which the relevant subject-matter can fit. In those cases, we must refrain from deleting the grandfather category, or the pathway into the Article from that category will be lost altogether. Do we agree that too?
Now let's see how this applies to some of your recent deletions, taking the article Fortress of Humaitá as a concrete example.
The fortress of Humaitá was not just a physical military installation: its importance in history goes well beyond that. For example, as you can see by reading the Article, it would never have been built in the first place unless there had been ongoing territorial disputes between Paraguay and its neighbours. The fortress was built because of those disputes, and also the building of the fortress exacerbated those disputes (the Brazilians had problems sailing to their province of Mato Grosso). That is why I included the Category: Territorial disputes of Paraguay. Please can you explain why you deleted this?
You deleted Category:Ironclad warships. The Paraguayan war was the first modern war, after the American Civil war, in which iron-armoured warships were actually used; and in the history of developments in naval vessels, the Paraguayan war experience is illuminating yet largely forgotten. Also the ironclad warships made this kind of land fortress almost obsolete. The purpose of WP categories must be to facilitate the pursuit of knowledge by its appropriate classification. How is a student of 19th century ironclad warship history, who does not know already about the Paraguayan war and the relevance of the Paraguayan experience thereto, supposed to find the article Fortress of Humaitá, if the category is deleted?
To students of Geopolitics, Humaitá could be an interesting subject. Here we have the most lethal war in South America (and in proportionate terms, possibly the most lethal war, anywhere), of which Humaitá was an instrumental cause, and possibly the most instrumental cause (because, paradoxically, this defensive system made López feel practically invulnerable, and gamble on being the aggressor). Also, the building of the fortress made Brazil feel threatened, because it feared its ships would prevented from sailing to its own Mato Gross province. Rich material for a student of geopolitics, no? But how is a student of geopolitics supposed to get from there to Humaitá, of which he very possibly never has heard? If you say it was ok to delete the category, what subcategories did you think of substituting to enable him to make that discovery journey?
What I've just said applies to Category:International relations theory.
Now let's look at some of your deletions in the article Passage of Humaitá.
The categories Geopolitics, International relations theory, Political geography, Paraguayan war (!), Nationalism studies, Artillery, and Ironclad warships have been deleted, merely on the ground that they're too abstract, with no attempt, so far as I can see, to identify and substitute more concrete subcategories within those classifications, thus losing the informational content. Please explain this.
In general, to me it seems unwise to delete categories unless one is reasonably familiar with the topics covered by the article, which implies having actually read it with some care. Are you confident that you did so?
Please do not delete categories from either of these two articles until we have reached a principled consensus on this. It is better, pending resolution, to retain (possibly) too abstract categories, than to lose the informational content altogether. Excessively abstract categories can always be refined later.Ttocserp 16:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Laurel Lodged. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Laurel Lodged. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

world values survey studies on catholicism[edit]

dear user laurel lodged

the reported results in the catholicism article which you deleted are watertight. get an spss xxiii program, the free wvs file and you will get the same results based on tens of thousands of interviews. i reverted your undo command. user john de norronaJohn de Norrona (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You copied and pasted directly from the PDF and so I have deleted your contribution as a WP:COPYVIO. Don't do it again. Write your own material. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople from Ireland has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Sportspeople from Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers who are not citizens of the Republic of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sussexpeople (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Chalcedonianism has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Chalcedonianism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Court titles[edit]

Hello. I noticed you moved a number of articles which had the words "High Court" in them to separate pages with "High Court (X)", with X being the country in which the court sits. You did this with the High Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand. This should not have been done, because the actual name of those courts was as original named in the articles. See, e.g. the talk page for the High Court of New Zealand, where I have explained why that was inappropriate for that Court. There are also comments on the High Court of Australia talk page. I have not checked other courts, but I suspect the same error may have been replicated with them as well. Please be careful in future with other institutions - and I suggest foreshadowing it on the relevant talk page first. Thanks. -Sagaciouseight (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sagaciouseight that the New Zealand High Court article move should have been discussed on the talk page first. I suggested to them that a requested move discussion be held to decide whether the page should be moved back. However, if you accept Sagaciouseight's evidence on the talk page, let me know and I'll move it back myself without further bureaucracy.-gadfium 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that there needs to be a wider discussion about individual countries appropriating what is, essentially, a very generic name. But for the moment, I'm content for this to be rolled back. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. In my opinion, I don't think it is "appropriating" a generic term when a name happens to contain that term within a longer and specific title. Taken to its logical conclusion that would seem to lead to absurd and impractical results. For example, does that mean every "Government of X country" is appropriating the term "Government"? Additionally, I don't really see practically how there could be any confusion about it. For example, I don't see how someone visiting a page titled "High Court of New Zealand" could confuse it with a "High Court" of another country. Sagaciouseight (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Also apologies for the method of my original attempt at reversion; I did not know how to reverse a move so my rollback was botched. Sagaciouseight (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Laurel, I was the one who moved the High Court of Australia article back. Like Sagaciouseight I don't really understand your argument, which you have stated in a number of places, about countries "appropriating a generic term;" that in fact is the opposite of what is the case with Australia and NZ - countries that give their court a title which includes their own (non-generic) country name. But more to the point, wikipedia isn't the place for a "wider discussion" about what countries should or shouldn't do! Wikipedia articles should be based on the what actual names are as reported in the sources, whether that's what we editors think they should be or not. I'm still concerned that you moved a number of other articles without discussion (e.g. High Courts of Bhutan, Singapore) and if your reasoning is the same, they should be moved back. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Bishops from Ireland has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Bishops from Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your academic integrity, which helps keep Wikipedia a top-notch resource for the global community to use.Jobas (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8#Category:Sports organizations of Austria[edit]

Please note that I have closed this discussion as "rename as nominated". If you think that these categories (not just the Austrian one) should be named "in" their respective countries, not "of" them, feel free to create a new nomination for all of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)