The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Strongly Support - This change is long overdue. Where I come from, "Draft dodgers" is highly pejorative; in contrast, "Draft evaders" is a neutral term, far more appropriate for Wikipedia. Anomalous 0 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2019 (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: This category in much more in line with the well established category of Research institutes in Foo than the much smaller one of Research organisations in Foo Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This university has been merged with Gautam Buddha Technical University reforming the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Technical University which is now named Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. The article has been merged but the category seems to have been missed. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Various similar categories have been deleted in the past on the grounds that "recreational" is hard to define, and we generally don't classify drugs by how they are taken. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this specifically because I couldn't find the information in any logical way. I was researching and trying to find exactly this across multiple cultures: "What things across time/place cultures did people 'chew'?" The argument falls flat that "we generally don't" when users come looking for a useful organization and we've deleted the information they want. Both recreational and sub-labial are easy to define by the same inclusion criteria the rest of the project uses: by citable sources. If the article text can cite that a drug is used recreationally, and article text can cite methods of use, then it seems very obvious that users should be able to organize and navigate by those criteria. A secondary argument that these criteria are trivial, but since the classifications and methods of use are essential as defined by NGOs, medically and legally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2019 (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.
Upmerge We do not need a category for 4 article. Yes, we may at some point in the future have more articles, but not every synagogue is notable, so that there have been more does not say we will ever have more articles. Categories are meant to be built in a way so they are useful now, not in some mythic future that we cannot know will exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. I can find no reference where these Linux versions are referred to by this name. They are all either called Linux on Power, or Power Linux. I don't see the "ISA" term used at all. A really paranoid android (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't claimed that these Linux distributions have "Power ISA" in their name. This category is for Linux distributions that run on computers that implement the Power ISA. It contains, as it did when it was nominated: Debian, Fedora (operating system), and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. None of these distributions have Power in their name. And what has "Linux on Power" or "Power Linux" got to do with this discussion? These are not the names of any Linux distribution (AFAIK); they are IBM phrases/terms that describe Linux running on Power-related things, and the former is also just a partial match for "Linux on Power Systems", which means what it says: Linux running on IBM Power Systems. 99Electrons (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given that the Power architecture is now open, any implementing vendor could run Linux for the Power architecture on their hardware, and therefore, the name should change to reflect that neutrality? Are there any real world examples of this? If not, I'm still opposed. A really paranoid android (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely misunderstood me. I'm saying Category:Power Linux distributions was created for Linux distributions that support the Power ISA, but it doesn't give the name of the architecture correctly—it mistakenly shortens it to Power. That's wrong, there's no such architecture called Power. 99Electrons (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2019 (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.
This is the key reason, I'm on the "oppose" side of things. If common usage doesn't use the ISA term, who does it benefit if the category name is changed? It seems like this would be a very pedantic way to handle this topic, which is not going to be followed by the majority of readers. It may be imprecise as it stands, but IMHO, changing things to be more precise, will make things less usable. A really paranoid android (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that the common name for "Power ISA" is "Power", I stated the reason why a person wouldn't find many mentions of "Power ISA" among Linux distributions. This reason is because for some architectures, the convention amongst free software, which Linux distributions are subject to, is to refer the port name instead of that of the architecture. This can be due to a number of reasons: for brevity, or because the same architecture is used by multiple incompatible platforms, necessitating a separate port to each, thus rendering the architecture irrelevant. Another reason is because of history: the architecture was called something else in the past, and instead of introducing a new port name to reflect the new architecture name, the existing port name is reused with some qualifier. As a final example, the port may require additional commonalities other than architecture: endianess, ABI, etc.
Free software or Linux distributions doesn't refer to the Power ISA frequently for some of the reasons outlined previously. The Power ISA is an evolution of the PowerPC architecture. Linux was ported to PowerPC first, so all ports to the PowerPC and subsequent architectures are called "ppc". Power ISA is also used in either big or little endian mode, so ports must choose one. Finally, Power ISA software uses an ABI specified by the OpenPOWER foundation that's different from the ones used by PowerPC.
These reasons have caused all the four Linux distributions in Category:Power Linux distributions to refer the architecture by some name other than that of the architecture:
Debian has a ppc64el port, which targets Power ISA 2.07 and 3.0 in the little endian mode using the 64-bit OpenPOWER ELFv2 ABI.
Fedora also has a ppc64el port, which supports IBM Power Systems and industry standard OpenPOWER computers (which use IBM POWER7/8/9 processors, all of which are Power ISA processors).
Red Hat refers to "architectures", but consistently refuses to refer to any architecture by name, using other names instead, and for the Power ISA, it names the specific processors supported and the endianess supported.
SUSE refers to the POWER processor series, and mentions that it's actually a ppc64el port.
Can we put the arguments pertaining to usage to bed now? There never was such an argument, because every argument for usage that has been put forward was based in an incorrect understanding of the situation, and has added nothing to the consensus process other than confusion.
Finally, for a category that's part of the Category:Linux distributions by processor architecture hierarchy, the only acceptable name for an architecture is the name of the architecture, not a partial match that's never been shown to be in use, let alone in common use. A user of this hierarchy would expect all its subcategories to refer to the architecture by its name. This signifies the relationship between the subcategories and their parent. This is especially important in the case of the Power ISA, because there are other things with similar names that differ by only capitalization, suffixes, and the inclusion of other words. Thus, it's the omission of "ISA" from "Power ISA" that's confusing and obstructive towards easy navigation. 99Electrons (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2019 (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.
Agree no problem! that's right! Srivin (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)