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:KEEP. -Splash - tk 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCAT. We don't cat Olympic atheletes by their event, just what sport they competed in. For example, Usain Bolt is under the track-and-field categories, not one for the 100m, 200m, relay events, etc. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the comparison to Bolt fair? Do notable Olympic sailors regularly compete in multiple events within the sport? John Vandenberg(chat) 09:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It would be category clutter to add further cats for each event he's appeared in. Compare swimmer Ian Thorpe, or cyclist Chris Hoy, for example. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The current situation (other Olympic sailing classes) is that at least two cat tags are used. One for the participation in that specific Olympic year and one for the class (e.g. Fred Imhoff, Valentin Mankin). Besides the fact that this will remove the extra cat in the topic this way will create extra functionality (selecting by class, year, Olympic and non Olympic sailors in a specific class) as soon as I have done this for the other classes as well. This is my intention to realize asap. Also I agree with John Vandenberg comment below, that regatta's are most of the time organized as a separate class event with the exeption of the Olympics and possible one year out of four World Championship. Furthermore I like to add as argument that during their Olympic sailing career, sailors often (more general practice than an incident) change class. (e.g. Valentin Mankin, Hans Fogh, Roy Heiner. The odds that Bolt will change from 100m to the marathon or discus are slim.NED33 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've just destroyed your own argument with "that during their Olympic sailing career, sailors often ... change class", which will generate the OVERCAT that's already been mentioned. The idea of Bolt moving from 100m to the marathon is redundant too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 12:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand. e.g. In the previous situation Valentin Mankin was taged: Category:Finn class sailor, Category:Tempest class sailor, Category:Star class sailor, Category:sailors at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Category:sailors at the 1972 Summer Olympics, Category:sailors at the 1976 Summer Olympics and Category:sailors at the 1980 Summer Olympics. 7 categories in total. In the new situation it will be: Category:sailors at the 1968 Summer Olympics - Finn, Category:sailors at the 1972 Summer Olympics - Tempest, Category:sailors at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Tempest and Category:sailors at the 1980 Summer Olympics - Star. Therefor losing 3 out of 7 categories and we gain functionality.NED33 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. AFAICS, this creates no extra category clutter, because sailors do not usually compete in more than one class at any given Olympics. In 2012, each class had 10 races with all boats participating (with one exception, which had 15 races); the competitions were held almost simultaneously, and the schedule shows that it would have been impossible for a sailor to compete in more than one class. That is very different to the situation with runners, who will usually compete in races of several different lengths. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there will be several sailors from older Olympics who competed in two different events at the same games. I don't see what benefit this brings in breaking down the parent category by the sailing class for the Olympian. No other (Olympic) sport has or needs this structure. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 11:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: if you can produce any such examples, we can consider them. But I think it is unlikely other than in the very early days, because sailing at the Olympics (as in other sailing championships) consists of a lengthy series of races in which all participants compete, with the different classes overlapping (look) again at the 2012 schedule. Unless a competitor has magical powers of bilocation, they cannot be in more than one boat at the same time, so are physically incapable of participating in more than one class. Even as early as 1920, each class had multiple races, and by 1948, each class had 7 races held over 10 days. I am not aware of any other Olympic sport which organised in this way. Do you know of any? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what benefit this brings in breaking down the parent category by the sailing class for the Olympian. No other (Olympic) sport has or needs this structure. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 15:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty tells me to mention that there are two examples of sailors competing in two sailing events at the same games. In 1900 there was a final race for all competitors. All boats classes started in one go (except 10 - 20 Ton class). The other example is Bob Maas who tried two events in 1932 (Snowbird and Star). This attempt cost him the gold medal in the Snowbird since he could not be in time at one of the starts. After him there was, as above mentioned, no physical possibility anymore. Furthermore , and regardless if other sports do need this or not (I'm no expert in other sports), for sailing it add's functionality within the topics and like to keep that.NED33 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Lugnuts: The benefit is that it groups together sportspeople who actually competed with each other at the highest level, rather than with those participated in similar competition.
As before, can you identify any other Olympic sports whose competitions are organised in such a way that competitors can participate only in one series of events? Unless you can, the comparison with other sports is a bit like asking why we have categories for Anglican bishops but not Quaker bishops. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All to group individuals by a strong defining characteristic and by the characteristic in which they are primarily described and defined in reliable sources. The structure serves as an aid to navigation across articles for individuals who share the same characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to parents then delete all Lugnuts is right. We don't classify Olympians by the particular sub-events they participated in. There are many olympic sports, and each of those sports has many different events - either for distance, or weight class, gender, etc. Nonetheless, we haven't replicated this splitting-by-event scheme to any other sports that I can find. There are certainly other sports organized such that a single person can't compete in all of the events - for example, this article notes that Carl Lewis may not have been able to run the 200m because of a scheduling conflict: [1]; (it is likely that when they know a notable athlete will compete in multiple events, they may set up a schedule to accommodate) - but the synchronicity or lack thereof doesn't mean we should start to break down sports into individual events for categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A sailing class at the Olympics is not an individual event. It is a series of 10 to 15 events which are assessed as a single competition. Your example of Carl Lewis illustrates the distinction nicely: in 1998, he competed in at least 4 separate competitions: long jump, the 100m, the 200m, and a relay. In the sailing classes, it would have been impossible for him to compete in more than one competition, any time in the last 80 years. Why do some editors want to categorise this sport in the same way as sports which have a completely different competition structure? In other sports. WP:OC#OVERLAPPING would apply, but there can be no overlap here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gymnastics works the same way (multiple events assessed as a single competition). In general, if you look at past precedent, we classify by sport, not by competition/event/medal. So while there are 10 medals awarded in alpine skiing, we group them all together under Category:Olympic medalists in alpine skiing. And as noted above by another discussant, there are cases where sailors competed in multiple classes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The gymnastics multiple-events-as-single-competition are not so drawn out as to preclude competitors from taking part in other gymnastics events. A quick look at the 2012 gymnastics schedule shows that it did allow participation in multiple competitions, and further down that page medal table shows at least 5 people who were medallists in multiple events (there may be many more, but I stopped looking once I found 5).
That would be impossible in sailing in any of the years since the Soling became an Olympic class in 1972. If there are other classes whose history extends back to the very distant period (up to 1932) when multi-class competition was possible, then we can consider a different approach. But Obi's opposition seems to be based on a refusal to consider the actual circumstances of the categories under discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider the circumstances, but "schedule arranged such that athletes usually can't compete in more than one class" does NOT imply "Thus, create subcategories for all classes". As a trivial example, if you are competing in Judo, you cannot compete in different classes - not because of scheduling, but because it would be difficult to put on more weight. That said, we don't have Category:Judoka at the 2012 Summer Olympics - Extra-lightweight as a subcat of Category:Judoka at the 2012 Summer Olympics which has 385 members. If we split sailing by class, there isn't any reasonable argument that could be made to not split Judoka by weight class, or cyclists by gender, or weightlifters by weight, etc. Saying "Well, we can have as sailing category because sailors can sail any class but schedule makes it impossible" vs "No, we can't have different cats for Judoka, because they simply can't compete in multiple weight classes" - the whole thing becomes arbitrary. once you allow one, it's a landslide and you have to allow the others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, do try to stay on-topic. This discussion is not about Judoka or cyclists or weightlifters. It is about sailors, who have for 80 competed in discrete and non-overlapping classes. Why do you want to categorise then as if they all competed together or in overlapping sets? What exactly is the positive advantage in your preferred schema? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the points is that in Sailing it is actually not possible to compete in more than one event in one Olympic while in Alpine skiing this is possible! e.g. Ivica Kostelić who won silver in slalom as well as super combined. • Again , if the idea of the nomination is to limit over categorization, than this solution reduces the number of categories as proven in the example of Valentin Mankin above (reduction from 7 to 4 categories! • standardization is a nice thing as long as it does not limit the functionality in specific cases. I think there are enough arguments on the table that point out that sailing is a special case. Splitting in Olympic categories per event adds wanted functionality in navigation for sailing. And navigation has his origin in sailing, isn't it;-) .NED33 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reduction in # of categories here is not germane; in some cases, we actually delete intersection categories in favor of more categories on articles (multiple upmerge), since intersections can be combinatoric in nature. In any case, if categorizing by sailors by sailing class is important, presumably they sail in that class outside of the olympics, so *only* putting them as "Soiling class Olympic sailors" is not sufficient- you could also have to keep them as "Soiling class sailors" and make the olympics one non-diffusing. So, you aren't saving cats in any case. Again, I could identify other sports where athletes cannot compete in multiple events, but that does not mean we categorize them differently - the tendency is to group in larger bunches.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Nominator's rationale is: WP:OVERCAT. If I look into that article I find "For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant...". in the main description of the term. Here we are not talking about adding hundreds of categories but about replacing one category by an other (e.g. Category:Sailors at the 1972 Summer Olympics in to one other Category:Sailors at the 1972 Summer Olympics - Soling) gaining navigational support and losing Category:Soling class sailors in the article in the process. So I do not think overcategorization is an issue here. NED33 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, you can't get rid of the Category:Soling class sailors, as the sub-cats should be non-diffusing, since soling class sailors who have built up an expertise in this domain will presumably compete in events other than the olympics. So, you *are* adding new categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that in WP:OVERCAT, overcategorization primarily is described as something within an (lengthy) article and not within sailing or Wikipedia as a whole. Therefor the nomination is AFAICS invalid. • And yes, within Wikipedia the category Sailing class sailors remains, but the Sailors at the 1972 Summer Olympics - Soling will roll-up into soling class sailors. Therefor no extra tagging within the article is needed and only the 'lowest' category is showed in the article.NED33 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, Ned33 is correct. No article can or will end up in a single extra category as a result of the creation of these categories; your point about a lack of reduction applies only if the categories are made non-diffusing, which seems perverse.
If we look at the 1972 Olympics (the Soling's first Olympic year), there were 72 Soling competitors, 25 Finn competitors, 69 Dragon competitors, 58 Flying Dutchman competitors, and 36 Star competitors. That's a total of ~200 sportspeople, none of whom could or did compete in more than one competition (in subsequent Olympics, the numbers are higher). Categories exist to facilitate navigation, so what exactly is the navigational advantage in lumping all these different sailors into a single 1972 Olympic sailors category? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think these categories should indeed be non-diffusing; if you are an Olympic swimmer it doesn't make you less of a swimmer; same applies for sailing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it doesn't make you less of a swimmer; it makes you more of a swimmer. A sub-cat which groups the highest-achieving participants in a sport does not somehow remove the articles from the parent category; it highlights them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most Olympic cats have several hundred competitors, if this is a problem we should split all of them by event. If you don't like the idea of splitting by events that people can have multiples of, only split on events where the same athlete can't compete in multiples - e.g. weight classes, gender, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support size splits, and my case for keeping these categories is not based on size. It is based on the simple fact that sailors in any year's Olympics in the last 80 years competed in several discrete and non-overlapping sets.
You are the one who wants to merge these categories into much larger parent categories, even though doing so will remove any category overlap; the merger will at best maintain categ clutter, and will actually increase it if you pursue your non-diffusion idea.
So I'll ask again: what exactly is the policy-based reason for this? What us the navigational advantage in doing so?
This discussion is not about swimming or gymnastics or any sport; it is about sailing. So in your reply, please try to discuss the categorisation of Olympic sailors rather than Olympic red herrings. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on saying that but I disagree. Many of your arguments could apply to Judoku or weightlifting or many other events. However, I believe cnsistency is just as important as navigational efficiency, and I also believe that sometimes less is more. There have been 46 different classes of sailing races during the olympics; this means that in order to find a given sailor, I would have to troll through many many categories to find them, and I'm not sure why browsing Finn-class sailors vs Laser-class sailors in Olympics X is useful, esp given sailors regularly switch events in subsequent years. Thus, I think adding these subcats creates clutter, and the head cats are not large enough to justify splitting on this. Additionally, if we do split on this, there is nothing to justify not splitting other events in the same way, for the same navigational purpose - boxers can only compete in one weight class, so why not split them accordingly? Long standing category structure suggests that we don't need such, so I prefer to quash this system before it spreads.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends, This starts to sound as: "We use books in this company, Son! We never had navigational tool for the last 1000 years. Your Grandfather could do without, so why can't you." If users of information in other sports need this too, allow this or do the discussion again in respect to that sport. So far I have still not seen any good argument other than "It was decided otherwise in the past", and proof of those policies is not given. Personally I like to work with Wikipedia, since it adds so much in relation to traditional encyclopedia's, flexibility for one. I also like to add content, especially on the subject matter of sailing. During the time this discussion continues I could have restructured the whole Olympic sailing content and added valuable content and navigational functionality. Now I feel like I’m trapped in a game that is not mine. I do value the work of those who are doing this in order to make Wikipedia also a high quality tool, but this takes forever. If this was a company we were out of business by now. Sorry, but I needed to get this off my chest. Regards.NED33 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a particular sailor, try the search box; it's faster and easier.
The idea that you would have to trawl through 46 categories is plain silly. If, for example, you were looking for an early 20th-century sailor, there would be no point in looking at the later classes. If you are looking at a particular year, there would be at most 6 subcats.
You have no idea why looking at one particular class of sailor us useful? Seriously? Because different classes require different skillsets, and attract very different sailors. For example, a 49er is a completely different boat to a Soling. The Soling is much less physically demanding, because it involves sitting down rather than dancing on a wire.
You keep repeating the word "clutter", as if its mere utterance had magic powers. However, the worst case is that these categs add no extra category to any article; the best case is that they actually reduce clutter on any given article. This has all been pointed out before, so why keep on repeating your claim when you know it ain't so?
If a split might help navigation in another sport, we can consider it. But different sports are organised differently.
Anyhoooo... I've stated my case, your side makes good points, I think my points are also reasonable. I'm not convinced either of us is close to convincing the other to change their mind, so I don't think we need to drag this out further. Let the chips fall where they may.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (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:REDIRECT to Category:Lake islands. This is a tricky debate. However, Grutness argues the case very well indeed and there is slightly greater weight of presence to rename. I also take into serious account the title of the relevant main article and the structure of the rest of the category tree as further indications of a wider established consensus as to how this type of category should be treated. -Splash - tk 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per the entire tree of subcategories for this category, and per the analogous category Category:River islands. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't "lake island" slightly ambiguous? It could refer to any island with a lake on it, rather than the intended meaning of an island in a lake. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought so, any more than "river island" is. It's a noun-noun compound, and in English the modifier almost always comes before the head (an ocean liner isn't a type of ocean, neither is a secretary bird a type of secretary). We can instantly tell the difference between a toy dog (a type of small dog) and a dog toy (a type of toy designed for a dog). It's really unlikely there'd be much confusion, if any. Certainly Google doesn't seem to think there'd be any (once you wade through all the unconnected things like bands, resorts, etc., you're only left with islands in lakes). Grutness...wha? 00:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: That would be even more reason for changing it. Reducing the number of words into one standard complex noun, rather than two separate nouns connected by a conjunction, would aid speed reading, not hinder it. Almost all categories in Wikipedia where there is a standard noun-noun name use that name - why should this one be any different to Category:Barbecue restaurants, or Category:Road bridges, or Category:Football teams, or Category:Ocean currents, or Category:Sheep breeds? If you like I could easily provide 1000 more examples...Grutness...wha? 13:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: We are not talking about any significant difference in length: only 3 extra characters. You would have a point if the alternative was a massive verbosity, but this is a trivial price for clarity. As the usability experts Nielsen Groups points out, it is best to choose descriptive words and phrases that your users relate to, even if they sound boring. Many of the examples you cite are not capable of holding a reverse meaning as this one does: for example, "ocean currents" cannot mean "currents of oceans", because the idea of hordes of oceans wandering around is daft. Similarly, "football teams" cannot be misreads as "teams of footballs", because leather-covered airpockets cannot gather together to form the attributes of a team. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: - actually, we are talking about a sizeable difference in length if we are talking about speed reading - a change from three recognisable items to two (a reduction of 33%), and a reduction of the gap between the two important textual concepts from four characters to one (75%). And the point you make about football teams and ocean currents is irrelevant to the reason I mentioned them. We talk about ocean currents, not current oceans. We talk about football teams, not team footballs. A bird dog is not a bird which looks like a dog. It is a type of dog. A bean salad is not a type of bean. A bus timetable is not a type of bus. A banana republic is not a type of banana. A gold mine is not a type of gold. Toothpaste is not a type of tooth. There is an easy to understand difference between a brick house and a house brick. English works consistently this way. The concept of a lake on an island would be an island lake, clearly and unequivocally (except that the term "island lake" doesn't seem to be in common usage - whereas lake island is). We do have crater lake, which is, quite understandably, not a crater in a lake, but a lake in a crater, for exactly the same linguistic reason. The same is true of coral island, which is a form of island, not a species of coral. There is no possible confusion. Even if there was some possible confusion, a sentence could be placed at the top of the category as a means of explanation, the same as is done in hundreds of other categories. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness, I am very impressed with that exceptionally creative use of maths. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Standard way of calculating distances in this circumstance, as anyone who has worked as a researcher in cognitive linguisticspsycholinguistics (a closer discipline to Dr. Murray's work, on which I was an assistant) will tell you. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point if we the intermediate word(s) introduced other concepts, such as "islands in tropical saltwater lakes". However, you apply those techniques to a 2-letter preposition whose only function is to remove ambiguity, and that's mischieviously disingenuous. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "mischieviously (sic) disingenuous". If you are talking about speed reading, any unnecessary gap between words reduces a reader's ability. The two-letter word is unnecessary - it removes a spurious, non-existent "ambiguity" - "lake island" is a frequently used description of islands in lakes, and is never used for any other purpose. There is no ambiguity in the term "lake island". I defy you to find instances anywhere where the term "lake island" is used to refer to a lake filled with islands. To claim that it is used in that way and therefore is ambiguous is being mischievously disingenuous on your part, as is ignoring the other arguments I have pointed out as to why the proposed name is appropriate - I see you have not argued that "coral island" is inappropriate because it could be a type of coral, or that "crater lake" is inappropriate because it could be a type of crater. Should they be changed to "islands of coral" and "lakes in craters" too? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose "River islands" was a terrible idea too, and in this case Lake Island is also a place name in its own right. Google searching shows that "lake island" tends to produce accidental juxtapositions while "island in lake" produces solid hits from the start. The case for rivers and islands is even more extreme. Stick to normal usage. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: While it is true that "island in lake" draws a lot of hits, almost all of those are of the form "Foo island in lake Bar" or similar. Of the first 120 I scanned, 84 also use the terms "lake island" in the article when no other conditional term (such as an island or lake name) is needed. Here are some examples of that [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. If sites like CBS and the BBC] use the term with no problems, I don't see there's any reason why we shouldn't - especially since we do, in every article and category that involved lake islands except for the one nominated. And though Lake Island (both capitalised, singular) is a place name, Lake islands (minuscule i, plural) is not (the key article for the generic term served by the category is Lake island). It works in exactly the same way that we have Category:Crater lakes (with key article Crater lake), whereas Crater Lake is also a place name in its own right. Grutness...wha? 13:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Lake islands" isn't a terribly common collocation in English. "Islands in lakes" may be wordier but it's easier to understand at first reading. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be common where you are, but it's the most common way of referring to them in many places. Certainly it's the most common way of referring to them here. And if you look at most of the articles about individual lake islands on Wikipedia, the term will be in use in the article. The term is widely used here on Wikipedia - everywhere except in this one category name. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. The whole tree is named this way, and the lead article is named this way. I don't see a lot of potential for confusion; if the reader is confused, they can read the headnote or the head article. + alignment with the rest of the tree makes sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename The parent article is Lake island and the entire Category:Islands in lakes structure her uses the form "Category:Lake islands of Foo" in a few dozen categories, not one of which uses the format "Category:islands in lakes in Foo". The two relevant links in the parent article at "Islands of the World: Largest Lake Islands" and "Largest Lake Islands of the World" both use the term "lake island", and the multiple sources provided by User:Grutness further demonstrate the broad support for this usage per WP:COMMON. The proposal would be a perfect candidate for a speedy rename given the circumstances, and I can't understand why we'd keep this one title while leaving the parent article and the 28 subcategories in Category:Lake islands by country unchanged, nor can I see how Wikipedia is better off with this inconsistent naming. If "Islands in lakes" is the better title, the better choice would be to go to WP:RM and convince the Wikipedia community as a whole that the name they're using is wrong for lake island, as well as for the correspondingly named inland island and river island articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parent article is badly named too; just for starters, it's really a "List of" article. But at any rate the naming problem here is a naming problem there as well; I would move it to List of islands in lakes right off it weren't for the likelihood of someone reverting that on principle. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it mirrors the river island article. And it isn't "really a 'list of' article" - it's just that the lede and informational sections are short. And with work, it's becoming less and less like a list article all the time. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might enjoy this: [10] - world's largest island-in-a-lake-on-an-island-in-a-lake-on-an-island. [11]. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a wikipedia article about it... yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we draw any conclusions from the fact that it's not called a "lake island lake island lake"? No wait, it's an "island lake island lake island". Alansohn (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The longer term looks better as a headline :) Also, the term "island lake" is almost unheard of in English, from what I can find. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 9 January 2014 (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:no consensus. There are two conflicting principles here. The first is that category names should follow the form of the head article, which in this case is swordsman; that principle supports the current name. The second principle, which supports renaming, is that per WP:NPOV, category names in Wikipedia should avoid gender marking in job titles when the category is intended to include both genders. One parent (Category:Swordsmen) follows the first principle, while the convention of Category:Fictional characters by occupation is predominantly gender-neutral. There was no consensus here on which of these valid principles to prefer, and the two previous CfDs give little guidance because they essentially contradict each other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I started this nomination not realizing there's some history. At first blush it seems obvious that the category should be gender-neutral to avoid identifying female characters like Xena (which is where I found it) and Beatrix Kiddo as male. However, the category under the proposed name was deleted about two years ago under very light participation and renamed from the existing to the current name in 2009, also on fairly light participation. If consensus emerges to delete I'm fine with that but if so then the swordsmen and sword fighters names should be salted to prevent the inevitable re-creation. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query: Is "swordsman" a problematically gender-specific word? To my understanding, it was the sword equivalent of "archer" and could apply fairly to men and women, to all but the worst pedants.Zythe (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename - The parent is Category:Swordsmen and we have real live people in Category:Japanese swordsmen. I don't see why the wording should be inconsistent across categories within this structure. Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-categories of Category:Fictional characters by occupation are almost exclusively gender-neutral, even those for occupations that have been traditionally referred to by a gendered term. It is this category that is the outlier of its primary structure. If tradition is not sufficient to maintain gendered categories for other fictional occupations (not to mention their real-life counterparts) then it's not sufficient to maintain this one. Supporting categorizing females as males is just bizarre. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My 3rd edition American Heritage College Dictionary defines swordsman thusly: "1. A man who is skilled in the use of swords. 2. A fencer" (emphasis mine). Only the second of these two definitions is gender neutral. We do have Category:Fencers. I suggest renaming Category:Fictional swordsmen to Category:Fictional fencers. If that is not satisfactory (as I am not well versed in the details of fencing/sword fighting), then I agree with the rename to Category:Fictional swordfighters as suggested in the nomination. LadyofShalott 03:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster says [12]: "one skilled in swordplay; especially : a saber fencer; archaic : a soldier armed with a sword" Fencer is *not* the same thing as swordsman, so that is not a good idea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says "fencing", I think of hollywood musketeers/pirates, classical fencing, and olympic/competitive fencing using sabers and rapiers, designed for distinctive swordplay much different then a claymore, machete, or katana. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Its wikipedia article says fencing refers specifically to a medieval Spanish sport. Sword fighter is the most accurate name for the category. Mythological sword fighter would be yet another category needed. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a category for fencers, it's for the gender neutral term "swordsmen", meaning one (male or female) who skilfully and habitually wields a sword.Zythe (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the gender neutrality which is the question though. LadyofShalott 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Swordsman," having MAN right in it, is not gender-neutral. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My Oxford Dictionary of English (on my Kindle) says " a man who fights with a sword (typically with his level of skill specified)" (again, emphases are mine). LadyofShalott 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? Some gender neutral words use "-man", often because it scans better.Zythe (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that is not a gender neutral definition. "A man" does not equate to "a human of any gender". LadyofShalott 14:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As early as the 1800's, "man" was considered and/or effectively used in gender-neutral terms. Female humans were 'Women" when gender was specified, and human males were "Wermen" (thats where "Were-" in werewolf [meaning "he"-wolf] comes from). But for some linguistic and/or social reasons, the "Wer-" was dropped and "man" became male-gender specific in context. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Diffuse - Move to Category:Fictional sword fighters or Category:Fictional sword practitioners and tag it as container for "specific types" of "swordmasters" who practice distinctive "sword art styles". As with Fictional riflemens/gunmens,Fictional swordsmen (and its word-variants) have been deleted numerous occasions for being broad and unspecified (compared to Fictional archers, which is clearly defined). The characters should also be moved to subcategories that follow Fictional martial artists-examples and the Swordsmen format; if a relevant category doesn't exist (such as Category:Fictional fencers) then it should be created. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2014 (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.
Category:Fictional characters by sexual behavioral attribute[edit]
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: Extremely offensive and wrong-headed in its various tacit assumptions. It's trying to reposition categories about LGBT identities as categories about sexual deviancies. Conflating LGBT with pedophilia/rape/incest is at best problematic. Open to any suggestions how to unwind this mess. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
I thought I did do that, what needs to happen? Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
I guess you did with a revision that linked to the existing category! I support the proposed split, such that sexual behaviors that are illegal (in global north English-speaking countries) are separated from identities and behaviors that are not. Nsw2042 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not particularly seeing the need for the fictional sex criminals category (although I agree that the shorter name is better) since members of two of the three potential sub-categories (for pedophiles and incest people) aren't necessarily or automatically sex criminals depending on the fiction (and a non-offending pedophile isn't a criminal). But the container category is pretty useless. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very poorly thought-out category. We already have the needed LGBT cat. I have no strong opinion on whether we should have a fictional sex criminal category, but I have no opposition to one. LadyofShalott 01:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as it seems to be grouping things quite arbitrarily to make a point of equating very disparate behaviours, not all of which are necessarily even sexual (in the case of LGBT).Zythe (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
selective upmerge and delete Most things are correctly categorized but a few are not, so upmerge those, then delete the category. Associating rape with LGBT is inappropriate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment categories should only be for defining characteristics, so it wouldn't be "fictive" virgins, it'd just be virgins, if they were actual virgins or not does not matter, it is whether they are defined by their period of virginity or claims of virginity. So, applying this standard, it matters only if the fictional character is defined by their virginity or claims thereof. Category:fictional characters notable for claims of virginity and Category:Persons notable for claims of virginity -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2014 (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.
