Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge all to Category:Organizations designated as terrorist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories in the main category Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator are kind of all over the place (Government of X designated terrorist organizations, Organizations designated as terrorist by X, X designated terrorist organizations, and Organizations designated as terrorist by the X government). This fits the nomenclature of the parent category most closely. At the very least it's a compound modifier. The use of a hyphen (as in Canada-designated terrorist organizations) negates the "government of" qualifier. So alternatively I'd be happy with that. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To my ear, "designated as terrorist" sounds weird. "designated terrorist organization" sounds less awkward. Neutralitytalk 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all t is not defining to the organization that a specific country put it on its terror list. This type of category will lead to category clutter, with the potential of some organizations getting put in over 100 categories just based on what countries have classed them as terrorist. We can have lists showing what organizations are designated as terrorists by specific countries, but these categories will just lead to clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally (Possibly listify). These all started off as "terrorist organisations", but that is a POV classification. To avoid that difficulty we had to use the lists of various governments. The problem is number of designating countries. This is going to cause category clutter. Perhaps we should listify the lot, or merge them so that an organisation subject to at least (say) 5 designations could go in the category. No objection to a shorter format. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (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.
Only some of the sub-categories were deleted, the category description of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist wasn't updated for the change, and the creator of the main category wasn't notified of the CFD? This was rather poorly executed, wasn't it? I've just spent a bunch of time removing categories from Category:Organizations designated as terrorist, and I'm not even sure if my actions were right or wrong. The point of the category was to have specific-attribution for the labelling of an organization terrorist. Removing these sub-categories defeats the very purpose. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary films about the film industry[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not straightforward enough for WP:CFDS, I note that the term "industry" appears in none of the parent categories. I realize this proposed rename does possibly increase the chance of confusion with the subcategory about documentaries on individual films, Category:Documentary films about films‎. That's not a deal-breaker for me, though. Other "industry"-less options are Category:Documentary films about filmmaking or even Category:Documentary films about cinema. Or others may feel it's best to just leave it, for clarity's sake, though I should point out that not all articles under this grouping are necessarily about film made through an "industry" model. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If renamed I think both of your other options are better than Category:Documentary films about film. --Gonnym (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why. BTW, if you look at the contents of the sole category using "film industry", Category:Film industry, it really does seem more devoted to the off-screen structure, tools, etc. But if we keep this category as is, the use of the term would require it probably be placed there, too, per WP:SUBCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the filmmaking name. It seems that is the best descriptor word of what is intended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, as nominator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Rename to Category:Documentary films about filmmaking per Category:Films about filmmaking and other such cats. Though part of me wonders if the film industry, as the broader term, is probably more appropriate... - jc37 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel the film industry is the broader term then perhaps you should oppose. My observation is that Category:Film industry/Film industry is not the broad term, it is used for "the technological and commercial institutions" -- while we reserve Film for the medium and Filmmaking for process of making these works -- either in an industrial/commercial or non-commercial model. But I thank you for your comment as it's helped me to clarify my rationale, at least. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
    I'm actually not sure, hence my comment : )
    So for now, we can probably go with filmmaking, and can address a future rename in the future if necessary... - jc37 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, after looking further, let's agree that film industry encompasses a larger group than just this cat - distribution, advertising, marketing, merchandising, accountants, etc.
    That said... what's the difference between Category:Film production and Category:Filmmaking?
    I'm starting t think that "film making" should be deprecated, and the used terms should be film industry, and film production. which would then put both trees better in the Category:Industry and Category:Production and manufacturing trees.
    So for this particular category: Rename to Category:Documentary films about film production. - jc37 05:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for me, I still think we need to make peace with the fact that Category:Documentary films about film is the natural category name, per Category:Works about film. With a good category description that helps people understand the difference between it and the individual Category:Documentary films about films, per Category:Films about films. It seems to me we're going through contortions here to avoid the natural naming structure, for no particularly strong reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that films about films is ambiguous.
    It would include both a film about the production of a film, as well as a film about the content of a film. Star wars might be a good example. A documentary about jar jar binks and the pre-quels and viewer response to that character shouldn't be categorised with a film showing the production of the prequel trilogy in the stages in the UK. Two entirely different types of documentaries. - jc37 02:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but that just doesn't make sense. You're now arguing against a category name which exists and hasn't been nominated: Category:Documentary films about films and isn't ambiguous at all. It in fact has a subcat Category:Star Wars documentaries, which does seem to devoted to films about the making of. But if we ever do get a doc about "jar jar binks and the pre-quels and viewer response to that character," then it would be in Category:Star Wars documentaries as well as perhaps Category:Documentary films about fandom. I'm cool with the possibility that nothing's going to happen, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (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:Fauna of Macquarie Island[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Wilson's storm petrel is found on Macquarie Island is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. Lists (e.g. Macquarie_Island#Flora_and_fauna and Birds of Macquarie Island) are the correct way to record this information. Note: Birds of Macquarie Island should also be upmerged to Category:Macquarie Island. DexDor (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (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:Million+[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a university is a member of this group is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (I looked at a sample of articles in the category and none mentioned being a member of this group in the article text). For info: There is a list at Million+#Member_institutions. That article currently has a GNG tag. If that article can't establish notability then that's a further indication that this isn't an important characteristic of a university. DexDor (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete highly ambiguous. Could be used to categorize anything with some reason for being over a million (like more than 1million people, more than $1million revenue, etc) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining to the universities involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2015 (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:Upcoming Pakistani films[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Upcoming films. MER-C 13:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions, it does not appear necessary to diffuse Category:Upcoming films by country. The category should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to "Upcoming films", if not already included. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (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.

“Lakes of…” categories duplicating "Lochs of..." in Scotland[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.
The result of the discussion was: I think that there is a consensus here to convert the nominated categories to "Freshwater lochs of FOO" categories. However, I am just going to close this by merging them as originally nominated to the "Lochs of FOO" categories, and then if users wish they can create the "Freshwater lochs of FOO" categories. The reason I am doing this is that an unsubcategorized Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland already exists, and creating subcategories by council area will require changing Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland and Category:Lochs of FOO to Category:Freshwater lochs of FOO on every one of these articles, which is a task for manual processing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate existing "Lochs of..." categories, or should be renamed so for consistency per WP:ENGVAR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment below, if intended purpose is to indicate which lochs are freshwater and which sea lochs would support renaming to Category:Freshwater lochs of Foo, the creation of a Category:Sea lochs of Foo being a worthy sister. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support redundant duplication JarrahTree 00:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lakes are not the same as lochs. Lakes may be named lochs, but that is different. This article clearly explains this. bodies of water named 'loch' may be a [freshwater] lake or it may be a 'sea loch' which is a firth, fjord, estuary, strait or bay. This is reflected in the existing council area lochs categories, which are a mixture of the two and can be completely confusing (but I will not change their named-based content). The only bodies of water I am putting into the new lakes categories are freshwater lakes, not sea lochs. In this way, any user coming to the Scotland lakes categories will just find lakes, regardless of their loch name--just as is the case with all other countries, regardless of local naming convention. I think these lake categories are fully justified and helpful to the WP reader. Categories are preferentially based on article content, not article name. Hmains (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you want a subcategory of lochs which are freshwater, Freshwater lochs of... would seem to be what you are after (possibly with a redirect from Freshwater lakes of...) paired with a Sea lochs of... category perhaps. That makes the distinction clear; nobody had clocked that that was your aim in what looked like a plain and baffling duplication of the category. "Loch" is not just part of their name, it is what they are conventionally referred to as, not just in broad Scots but in the most formal of Scottish Standard English. To disregard what you term "local naming convention" forces a term upon the category name that is not conventional to the WP:ENGVAR appropriate to it. Freshwater lochs... and Sea lochs... would make the distinction clear and respects ENGVAR. Rename instead of merge? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've noticed there were several instances earlier today whereby you added both Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland and Category:Lakes of Foo to an article. If you are denoting the fresh water character in "lakes" categories, as you tell us, surely each "lakes" category for a Scottish council area is a child of the overall "Freshwater lochs of Scotland" category, should be designated as such, renamed Category:Freshwater lochs of Foo for consistency and WP:ENGVAR, and only the child added to any article, not the parent as well? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well-spotted, so the cats above, renamed per WP:ENGVAR and consistency, would be sub-cats of the latter, with Category:Lakes of Scotland merged to Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland, thus: Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Lakes of Scotland‎ to Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland‎‎ (nomination moved to individual discussion below)

  • I'd suggest we keep the discussion about the parent category in the discussion below, that may be a different type of discussion and a different outcome of the discussion than the discussion about the child categories of each council area. Just to make sure, you are maintaining the original nomination regarding the child categories of each council area, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative nomination: Thanks for the closures of the two individual child cats below and your suggestion about the parent cat is persuasive; I'll strike the merger regarding the latter from immediately above and note it at the individual discussion below. Regarding the child categories, now in the knowledge that the cat creator intended to indicate their freshwater character, I wish to nominate that each is renamed to Category:Freshwater lochs of Foo. I wasn't sure about the best way to indicate that above, so please advise or amend as you see fit. Should I strike all the original merger and renaming nominations to highlight the new renaming nomination immediately below them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited your contribution by putting alternative nomination upfront, that should be clear enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, both for the parent category and for the individual categories by local authority. No problem merging to "Freshwater lochs of..." where such categories exist, or renaming where they don't, but the word "lake" in Scotland generally refers to something ornamental and man-made in a garden, so is inappropriate here. --Deskford (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a true English variation issue. There are things called lakes in Scotland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The facts are the geographically and as a landform, these are lakes. So they should be a lake category as landform categories go by geographic facts not local naming. None of these 'renaming' ideas match the facts. This is same as any other situation in which names do not match the geographic fact. There many bodies of water that are named 'Sound' but they are not sounds. They are bays, straits, channels, whatever, as found in the article text. So they are categorized as bays, straits, channels and whatever; only sounds get categorized as sounds. In Scotland, rivers get categorized as 'rivers', not 'Burns' or 'Waters' or whatever else the local name might be. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may well be fair enough but, per my most recent comment below at the Category:Lakes of Scotland by council area discussion, this makes for a confusing situation regarding the long-existent "lochs" categories. These were created to denote the bodies of water which are "geographically and as a landform" in the set "lochs" as used in Scotland, variant, on reflection, as it is from the rest of the English-speaking world's set "lake". They do not denote "hydronyms with the term "loch" in it". With the creation of the "lakes" categories it will have to be considered if the "lochs" categories are now redundant, to become "hydronyms with the term "loch" in it" categories (in which case the lochs without "loch" in their name would have to be removed) or to denote the Scottish landform set "loch", wider as it is than lake. Dependent on the result of these choices, category name wording and/or very clear explanations at the head of cat pages ought to be considered to avoid confusion. To a Scot certainly, and probably to others, categorisation of an article in apparently synonymous "loch" and "lake" cats is unlikely to immediately signal that the latter excludes sea lochs, with the current category titles at least. If we go the "hydronyms with the term "loch" in it" route, the current category titles do not clearly signal this either. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains, it might have been better to respond here rather than making another raft of unilateral edits. Your edits were of the form:
"This category is for article relating to lakes in Foo, including freshwater lochs--regardless of name.
For all lochs, see Category:Lochs of Foo"
Firstly minor copy and paste typos, presumably, in all the edits - "article" is clearly intended to be "articles" plural and the hyphen is duplicated in "lochs--regardless" (though if this was intentional see MOS). Of more consequence, saying that the categories "includ(e) freshwater lochs" is potentially confusing as they in fact consist exclusively of freshwater lochs. Also, despite the fact that the term "loch" covers wider territory than "lake", it tends to be regarded as synonymous, particularly in Scotland, rendering the reference to "all lochs" confusing without clarification. I am not necessarily advocating that this wording at each article is the solution to this CFD nomination but in relation to the wording above, can I suggest that this would be clearer:
"This category is for articles relating to lakes in Foo, that is to say freshwater lochs, regardless of name.
For all lochs, freshwater and sea lochs, see Category:Lochs of Foo"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good, happy if you make amendments per my suggested wording re the lakes cats. It still leaves the issues regarding lochs cats in need of resolution, per the my post above starting "This may well be fair enough..." to around "wider as it is than lake". There is a similar unresolved issue at Lakes of Scotland by council area below. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion must definitely be closed as a merge, per WP:OVERLAPCAT, while sea lochs should not be included in these categories. The question really is what the name of the merged categories should be (lakes or freshwater lochs), or in other words the question is how much weight WP:ENGVAR has in this case. As a non-native English speaker I'm not confident I can judge this properly. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the content of the categories, you will not find overlap. The lake categories I created (as with all lake categories in every county) include both freshwater and saltwater lakes--lakes are surrounded by land on all sides. The loch categories were always a mixture of lakes and bodies of water directly connected to oceans and seas--never called lakes anywhere. And not really part of the landforms/bodies of water/lakes category structure. Hmains (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (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.

A few more award categories[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
more awards
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. Most categories are mainly heads of state, nobility, politicians and military to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Some categories are not only for heads of state, politicians etc. but still there are not defining at all, people in these categories are notable for something more important (writers, actors, etc.). Upmerge the eponymous articles to their country parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment in that CFD was just "Highest order of Denmark". Articles that don't even mention the award are placed in these categories[1]. Judging by this the elephant categories aren't even correctly named. Regarding "town they are born" see WP:OSE. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are exactly the awards that have lead to some articles being in more than 50 award categories. None of these awards meet the criteria for acceptable award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2015 (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:Mountains and hills of Dundee[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete; merge contents to Category:Mountains and hills of Scotland and Category:Landforms of Dundee. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category... single entry. Would be better incorporated, as before into Mountains and hills of Scotland. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:56, 22 June 2015 (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:Lakes of Scotland by council area[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete, but per related discussion, may be re-created as Category:Freshwater loch by council area if the by-council categories are created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing "Lochs of..." category. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straight delete doesn't make sense. The two trees need to be merged, also at subcat level. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – delete does make sense in this case as this is a new tree alongside the existing tree and nothing has been moved across. I was hoping Hmains would explain the creation. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lakes are not the same as lochs. Lakes may be named lochs, but that is different. This article clearly explains this. bodies of water named 'loch' may be a [freshwater] lake or it may be a 'sea loch' which is a firth, fjord, estuary, strait or bay. This is reflected in the existing council area lochs categories, which are a mixture of the two and can be completely confusing (but I will not change their named-based content). The only bodies of water I am putting into the new lakes categories are freshwater lakes, not sea lochs. In this way, any user coming to the Scotland lakes categories will just find lakes, regardless of their loch name. I think the lake categories are fully justified and helpful to the WP reader. Categories are preferentially based on article content, not article name. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you want a subcategory of lochs which are freshwater, Freshwater lochs of... would seem to be what you are after (possibly with a redirect from Freshwater lakes of...) paired with a Sea lochs of... category perhaps. That makes the distinction clear; nobody had clocked that that was your aim in what looked like a plain and baffling duplication of the category. "Loch" is not just part of their name, it is what they are conventionally referred to as, not just in broad Scots but in the most formal of Scottish Standard English. To disregard what you term "local naming convention" forces a term upon the category name that is not conventional to the WP:ENGVAR appropriate to it. Freshwater lochs... and Sea lochs... would make the distinction clear and respects ENGVAR. Rename instead of merge? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::...and I've included this category in the “Lakes of…” categories duplicating "Lochs of..." in Scotland" group nomination above, so could I suggest continuing any discussion there? (Not sure if there’s a way of closing off or appropriately striking this individual nomination?) Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested at group nom above, discussion separately is appropriate in this one instance. As it is now known that cat creator's intention had been to highlight freshwater character, this simply duplicates an existing cat (the existing one in the appropriate WP:ENGVAR) so:

  • These merge proposals don't seem to follow from the facts. The facts are the geographically and as a landform, these are lakes. So they should be a lake category as landform categories go by geographic facts not local naming. Also, not being noticed is that ≤Category:Lakes of Scotland by council area is a container category for the individual lakes-by-council-area categories. These proposed 'merges' would just confuse everything and everybody. Discussion must proceed on 3 levels: Category:Lakes of Scotland, Category:Lakes of Scotland by council area, and Category:Lakes of xxxcouncil area. And the articles themselves are a source of confusion since many of them do not even say what kind of loch it is. One has to surmise when the loch is in the middle of a mountain range, it is not a sea loch and so on, but the reader should not have to surmise this. For the experts in Scottish geography, this should be an easy fix. Hmains (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lakes are not lochs. Also I have to second Hmains that there is no evidence that we should use Engvar to mess up established landform categories. lakes are not political units, but geological ones, so their designation as such should not be so heavily influenced by local usage. Also, there are even bodies of water in Scotland called lakes. For me to be convinced that this is an Engvar issue, I would want to see evidence that if a Scottish writer was talking about Americans they would say "they went to the local loch" if they were talking of say people in Oakland County, Michigan. The fact that most of the lakes in Scotland are recently man-made units of water suggests to me that the use of the term loch for the bodies of water more reflects on the stability of hydronyms than it does on current usage. However, even if I could be convinced that English-speakers in Scotland at present would use the term loch when making general references in a formal setting, I still do not think that is reason to mess with landform categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you regard the newly created Category:Lakes of Scotland‎ as covering the identical set of entities as Category:Freshwater lochs of Scotland‎‎? Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of a response, if the answer is yes then the new category is either superfluous or there should have been a nomination to rename the latter as the former. Or if there is a difference, can it be clarified what it is? (The latter is not intended as list of freshwater bodies that have "loch" in the title, though there are hardly any which don't). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I forgot about your Scottish writer: it depends if they were addressing Scots or e.g. Americans. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (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:Lakes of Aberdeenshire[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.
The result of the discussion was: administrative close, this category has been included in a batch of categories that are being discussed just a few lines above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing "Lochs of..." category. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Lakes are not the same as lochs. Lakes may be named lochs, but that is different. This article clearly explains this. bodies of water named 'loch' may be a [freshwater] lake or it may be a 'sea loch' which is a firth, fjord, estuary, strait or bay. This is reflected in the existing council area lochs categories, which are a mixture of the two and can be completely confusing (but I will not change their named-based content). The only bodies of water I am putting into the new lakes categories are freshwater lakes, not sea lochs. In this way, any user coming to the Scotland lakes categories will just find lakes, regardless of their loch name. I think the lake categories are fully justified and helpful to the WP reader. Categories are preferentially based on article content, not article name. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you want a subcategory of lochs which are freshwater, Freshwater lochs of... would seem to be what you are after (possibly with a redirect from Freshwater lakes of...) paired with a Sea lochs of... category perhaps. That makes the distinction clear; nobody had clocked that that was your aim in what looked like a plain and baffling duplication of the category. "Loch" is not just part of their name, it is what they are conventionally referred to as, not just in broad Scots but in the most formal of Scottish Standard English. To disregard what you term "local naming convention" forces a term upon the category name that is not conventional to the WP:ENGVAR appropriate to it. Freshwater lochs... and Sea lochs... would make the distinction clear and respects ENGVAR. Rename instead of merge? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've included this category in the “Lakes of…” categories duplicating "Lochs of..." in Scotland" group nomination above, so could I suggest continuing any discussion there? (Not sure if there’s a way of closing off or appropriately striking this individual nomination?) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2015 (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:Lakes of Stirling (council area)[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.
The result of the discussion was: administrative close, this category has been included in a batch of categories that are being discussed just a few lines above. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing Category:Lochs of Stirling (council area) Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started adding them here piecemeal, see above, but is there any way of nominating them for deletion as a job lot, both for speed of dealing with them and so they can be dealt with collectively here? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you can nominate multiple categories together, for an example see this nomination. Then please propose merge instead instead of delete. In addition to a normal Cfm (merge) template you need to add the title that you use for the collective nomination, see instructions on the main CfD page. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am struggling to understand how to do this, will try to resolve the evident problems with my last two edits up top. (I think it may been much quicker and simpler to do the cats one by one after all...) Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge (either direction) leaving a redirect. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Lakes are not the same as lochs. Lakes may be named lochs, which is different. This article clearly explains this. bodies of water named 'loch' may be a [freshwater] lake or it may be a 'sea loch' which is a firth, fjord, estuary, strait or bay. This is reflected in the existing council area lochs categories, which are a mixture of the two and can be completely confusing (but I will not change their named-based content). The only bodies of water I am putting into the new lakes categories are freshwater lakes, not sea lochs. In this way, any user coming to the Scotland lakes categories will just find lakes, regardless of their loch name. I think the lake categories are fully justified and helpful to the WP reader. Categories are preferentially based on article content, not article name. Hmains (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider separately converting the loch categories to be just for sea lochs. It my be worth adding text to these categories pointing out that things should be categorized by what they are rather than what they are named. DexDor (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you want a subcategory of lochs which are freshwater, Freshwater lochs of... would seem to be what you are after (possibly with a redirect from Freshwater lakes of...) paired with a Sea lochs of... category perhaps. That makes the distinction clear; nobody had clocked that that was your aim in what looked like a plain and baffling duplication of the category. "Loch" is not just part of their name, it is what they are conventionally referred to as, not just in broad Scots but in the most formal of Scottish Standard English. To disregard what you term "local naming convention" forces a term upon the category name that is not conventional to the WP:ENGVAR appropriate to it. Freshwater lochs... and Sea lochs... would make the distinction clear and respects ENGVAR. Rename instead of merge? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've included this category in the “Lakes of…” categories duplicating "Lochs of..." in Scotland" group nomination above, so could I suggest continuing any discussion there? (Not sure if there’s a way of closing off or appropriately striking this individual nomination?) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2015 (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:Syracuse Orange wrestling[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. See discussion below. I put up the merger request before I realized I should have grouped the two requests under one heading. Dale Arnett (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there isn't even a separate epynomous article about Syracuse Orange wrestling. (If not deleted, support rename.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2015 (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:Syracuse Orange wrestlers[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge.
According to this article from Syracuse University's official website, it dropped wrestling in 2001. The university didn't change its nickname to Orange until 2004, as evidenced by countless articles, including this one from the campus newspaper.
For historic reasons, all categories for Syracuse wrestling should be at "Orangemen" (as it was and still is a men's sport). At the time I created the "Orangemen" category, I didn't realize there was already an "Orange" category; if'd known, I would have instead put up a CFR. I'll put up a CFR for the parent category of Category:Syracuse Orange wrestling.
— Dale Arnett (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. (If not deleted, support merge.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (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.

Anti-Masons from US states[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename to

– Fayenatic London 13:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename. Use of "Anti-Masonics" to mean "Anti-Masons" is unconventional if not outright incorrect.
"Anti-Masonic" is an adjective; "Anti-Mason" is a noun: See dictionary definitions at [2] [3] [4].
Google Web search gives 38,100 hits for "Anti-Masons" but only 868 for "Anti-Masonics"
Google Books search gives 27,600 hits for "Anti-Masons" but only 200 for "Anti-Masonics"
User:Sesel brought up the matter at Category talk:Anti-Masonic Party politicians.
—Phleg1 (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These categories are meant to include people who were part of the anti-Masonic party, not general categories of people who opposed masons. Categories need to reflect actual usage, not conform to ideas of proper grammar. The irregular construction of the name will make the purpose more evident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The adjective form is no more and no less indicative of party membership than the noun form is. Besides, each of the categories at issue contains a description clearly defining its purpose. —Phleg1 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However people do not have to go to the category and read the description before adding contents to it, so that is less than helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be OK too, I suppose. The advantage of Category:Pennsylvania Anti-Masons (perhaps an unimportant one) is that it follows the convention of other "politicians by party" categories, e.g., Category:Pennsylvania Democrats, Category:Pennsylvania Libertarians, Category:Pennsylvania Prohibitionists, Category:Pennsylvania Populists. Note that for each of the last three examples it is not obvious, just from looking at the category name, that the category is meant specifically for politicians of a particular party and not generally for followers of an ideology, but that's the convention currently being used. Phleg1 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename of Peterkingiron, as a reasonable compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt rename of Category:Anti-Masonic Party members from Pennsylvania, etc. These are categories for politicians of the party, not mere members. Not sure what to do about the original proposal, since "Anti-Masons" could be interpreted as those who were simply against Freemasonry. Perhaps the entire U.S. politicians by party formatting needs to be "rethunk". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with that. Though I think as I mentioned it would suggest that perhaps the way the U.S. politicians tree is structured should change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the name (implying members) and the intention (politicians) of these categories differ too much currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2015 (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.

Centuries in Czech Republic[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename/merge. MER-C 11:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename after this discussion was closed as 'no consensus'. This closure was sort of ironical because actually there was consensus in the discussion about the necessity to rename into something else - so "no consensus" was the worst possible outcome - but it seemed as if User:Brandmeister and myself disagreed on the exact target. So here is another attempt in the hope that this time we will achieve consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion. From what I see, Bohemia was chosen as an alternative name. Brandmeistertalk 09:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but Moravia was not part of Bohemia, so that each may need to be purged of any Moravian items, which would be placed in an appropriate sibling category. To some extent this is a theoretical argument, sinc eat most periods both had the same ruler. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_22&oldid=1079648424"