The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main article for this appears to be sea which is about 'the sea' that covers 70% of the worlds surface. As such it is too broad to be categorizing as this would overlap Category:Bodies of water or that could be its only content. So what if anything should be changed? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The most informative article about this may well be List of seas which notes the uniqueness of the Sargasso Sea and hence the ambiguity of a sea. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could delineate it by restricting this to a category of categories (which it is in all but category template), with marginal seas as a subcategory (defined by coasts, island chains, and having a seafloor composed of oceanic crust) and continental seas (defined by being on the continental shelf, but connected to the ocean) and inland seas (bodies of water where appreciable waves and tides occur), in addition to sea by ocean, sea by continent that the category contains in a haphazard manner. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename there is no objective reason for something being called a sea vs. a bay vs. a gulf vs. even a lake. Why Hudson Bay? looks like a sea anywhere else. Why the Persian Gulf? looks a lot like the Adriatic Sea geographically. The Aral Sea looks like a lake. So what do these have in common? The shared "name" of "Sea" - WP:OCAT. Perhaps something like Category:Subdivisions of the sea and trim out Aral and Caspian (or they get dumped in a "former" subcat) and we add in bays, gulfs, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sea is a clearly defined concept--a saline body of water partly or fully enclosed by land. Lakes are freshwater; read the articles. The reason why many, not all, of these bodies of water are named seas is that by the definition of 'sea', they are seas. The names follow from early discovery of the nature of the water body and proper use of the English language. Categories are to assist readers to navigate to sets of related articles; this category and its subcategories do just that. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, the Great Salt Lake should be classified as a sea? It is a saline body of water partly or fully enclosed by land. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not important what I would do, it is what referenced WP content already does. Great Salt Lake is listed in List of seas would fit in the definition of Sea in Body of waterHmains (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And GSL is categorized in Category:Saline lakes which most editors would not change. If you want to use the definition in body of water, you are arguing for a split with Category:Saline lakes probably being one target. The definition really is for two very different types of features, connected with an ocean and the other is a large lake without an outlet. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The North American Great Lakes are frequently called inland seas, and are more like seas than the Great Salt Lake or Salton Sea (and each much larger than the latter two; the Great Lakes have appreciable tides and swells and surf, and rogue waves that can sink ocean-going ships). The Dead Sea is like Lake Baikal except being puddle sized next to Baikal (both being rift lakes/seas type bodies). A sea should not be smaller in surface area or volume than the largest lakes (in surface area or volume). -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is a meaningful distinction between the various parts of the Ocean(s) and various (large) wholly inland bodies of water. For the most part, there is a difference in hydrography, geography, biology, legal treatment, etc. of the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rework so this is about what things are, not what they are named. Neither the Great Lakes of the US nor the Great Lakes of Africa can adequately be called seas. We should reserve sea for salt bodies of water. The connection between the Black Sea and the overall ocean system is clearly greater than that of the US/Canada Great Lakes. We also probably should reformat the list, because there is no reason to have the Great Salt Lake there, but not Lake Baikal, and why we have th man-made Salton Sea there at all is the really big question. Saline lakes are not seas. This gets even more confusing because in German the word for lake looks a lot like the English word for sea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on what definition you're working from. The one which requires that seas be directly linked to the ocean would exclude the Caspian, Aral and Dead Seas, the Great Lakes (Africa amd North America). The one that requires oceanic crust being the seafloor would include the Caspian Sea but exclude some marginal seas that have continental crust for seafloors. The one that defines it as bodies of water large enough to have swells, surf and tides would include the North American Great Lakes (and the one the early US used included the Great Lakes, being that Pennsylvania is not considered landlocked because it has access to Lake Erie) The one that requires depths to include an aphotic zone, would exclude some shallow marginal seas... -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment The Great Lakes are fresh water; they are not saline: they do not even fit the minimum definition of a sea. Why are they even being mentioned here? This should not be a definitional outcome from editors commenting here but from the reliable sources WP is supposed to be based on Hmains (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because having salt water is not the defining characteristic that jumps out to most people. Having tides is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. A composer is a person who writes music only, a lyricist is a person who write lyrics only. A songwriter is a person who writes words and music. Mr. McKinnon is patently a songwriter. We really wouldn't want every (3,400+) songwriter categories split because somebody wrote both (or either) words and music. Many of the members of this category are also redirects created with the purpose of filling the category. Richhoncho (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom (and as me being creator of the cats). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the fact that some articles are in both these categories shows they are unneccesarily specific breakouts. However I would caution agaisnt assuming the describe uses of the terms. With hymns people will often speak of the writer and composer, even if they are one and the same, many people have been called composers who also wrote lyrics. Evan Stephens is the example that comes to mind the fastest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I thought this was familar. Don't know if this can be a speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted category which was discussed here in March. Creator appears to be the person arguing for keeping the deleted category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why delete this category but keep Category:Freedom Trail? FriscoKnight (talk) 21:14 (PCT)
Delete Overcat and, of the articles that I checked, there is no indication that his trail passes through or around the given place. MarnetteD | Talk 04:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreated material. I don't recall whether the same editor created it the last time around, but he was prominent in the previous argument. At any rate there's no reason to accept this category until there is some reliable source for the sites on the trail. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of already deleted category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We currently have a hodge-podge of ministers and clergy. In my experience, "clergy" is very rare and "minister" is pretty well accepted by Presbyterians. Often the official title is "Minister of the Word and Sacrament". In some denominations, "teaching elder" is the official name of the office, based on the idea of the parity of ministers and ruling elders, but it is pretty rarely used as a title in practice. I think it best to have any category for a denomination that officially uses a term other than "minister" (see this) to use that term, but since "minister" is universally accepted by Presbyterians as an appropriate term, all higher level Presbyterian categories can use it. JFH (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
