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, though there does seem to be agreement that the current system here is messed up. This is without prejudice to users changing the categorization for individual articles and/or proposing some other overhaul of the system. I note that the most recent consensus on the category was to "keep" it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "English republicans" is a category that is underpopulated, superfluous and misleading. The biographies invariably refer to those favouring the establishment of a republic in the UK (i.e. Great Britain excluding the situation specific to Northern Ireland), yet "English" could indicate that they propose a Republic of England solely (excluding Scotland and Wales). Call a spade a spade rather than having a pointless subcat. JJARichardson (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support As nom rightly says this category is confusing and misleading and also potentially BLP issue to label people who consider themselves British as English. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of this is true, but the issue is way more general, mainly caused by the insistence of Scottish nationalists in breaking down British categories. It's probably too late to repair that damage. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order to solve this, wouldn't it be possible to have Scottish and maybe also Welsh categories without an English sibling (i.e. keep English articles in the British parent category)? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too discriminatory for many. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Query So the scope is the UK but not including that part of the UK in Northern Ireland? Does it include English people who support a republic in the island of Ireland? Does it include Oliver Cromwell, arguably the first English republican? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? Are there English people who don't support a republic in the island of Ireland? In most of it anyway. I doubt Cromwell was - either the first or a republican. He made himself king in all but name, then appointed his son to follow him. It's a silly, massively underpopulated category, & we might be better off without it. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how are the Cromwellian Parliamentarians "British"? They predate 1707. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and distribute "British" to its constituent nations, as far as possible -- This whole tree is an utter mess. I sampled about 5 or 6 articles. About three said nothing of the subject's republican view: either something needs to be added (with a source) or the articles need to be purged. Being republican is a multi-faceted issue: Danny Boyle is described as a Northern Ireland Catholic. That may well mean that he is a supporter of the Irish Republican movement, perhaps including making the whole of Ireland a single republic; but I do not know. As such he may well claim to be Irish, not British. I would suggest that the Roundheads should be purged into a category for that. On the other hand, I found a few people who specifically wanted to abolish the British monarchy and have an elected head of state instead. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are people who want to end the monarchy and establish a republic. This is for some defining enough to categorize on. Those who it is not defining for should be removed from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 16 October 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.
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. A precedents exists that asserts the idea that, if the title of the article for a city is the primary topic and does not include disambiguation, then the category should follow suit (cf. Category:Paris, Category:London, Category:York). However, there is also a separate precedent to keep the qualifier in the category name to avoid ambiguity where it exists (Category:Galway (city), Category:Dublin (city), Category:Limerick (city)). Both sides make valid arguments to support their respective case. These types of categories can only likely be changed on a case-by-case basis, and not a sweep of any sort; opinions are divided almost equally, and there is insufficient support to rename the categories as nominated. — ξxplicit 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clean up from recent RM decision to make the city the primary topic. It's logical for categories to follow their parent articles as is always the case when articles are moved away from a primary topic. Note this also covers the subcat, Category:People from Namur (city). Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: That would be true if there was only 1 owner for the category name and its eponymous article. However, in the case of Namur, there are competing entities vieing for the name and it's unclear which of the entities has primacy, or indeed if any could claim to have primacy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is highly ambiguous. Yes, the city is called Namur, but the province it is located in is also called "Namur". People from Namur will collect everyone from the province, making it unmaintainable. Same with the base category collecting everything that are provincial topics. "Namur" does not define the scope sufficiently to exclude the greater surrounding province from being acceptably categorized into it, making this not distinguishable as a city categorization. Category names should not be ambiguous. They should be clear as to what they pertain to when you get a HotCat listing. Ambiguous categories require patrolling to remove improperly categorized material, and there is no such thing as automation to do that, especially with nested jurisdictions of the same name. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But why have some categories be 'primary topics' (to use the article term) and some not? It's just so arbitrary and makes it so much more difficult to know how categories should be named. Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that concern for ambiguity is no different than your earlier opposition to the article name change (which I have no opinion on). RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely unrelated to my comments at the article, since the article's request was improper and procedurally deficient, and had nothing to do with ambiguity. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can have primary topics and hatnotes. Categories collect articles people add to them, frequently without reading the category itself, so the ambiguity concerns for category naming is much greater than for any article. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the standard practice, otherwise we would disambiguate every category that has any possible article titles of the same name, something we don't presently do. It makes most sense to just follow the article title rather than having unclear discussions about when a category title is 'too ambiguous', a completely subjective assessment. If we keep down this path we will need a CfD any time an article that has a cat is moved to the primary topic, something that is a complete waste of time. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most categories are not of the form "ABC, ABC, country" having the category "ABC". And there are several instances during CfD where it has been determined that the ambiguity for categories makes it necessary for the category name to be different from the article name, so though not standard practice, it is something that happens at CfD, afterall WP:NOTBURO we don't blindly make things match just "because". The CfD is determine if there is excessive ambiguity in the situation or not. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With what metrics? Just gut feel about when something is supposedly "too ambiguous"? If there was some actual clarity that we always over-disambiguate categories and have e.g. Category:London, England then fine, at least that would be clear to follow. Instead there seems to be this arbitrary mess where the actual intention seems to be to waste weeks at a full CfD discussion. CfD is an absolute timesink – I only come here when I'm trying to clean up after RMs and it still makes me want to give up on Wikipedia all together. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jenks24 here. One of the purposes of having the speedy criteria is to generally avoid the CFD timesinks that these issues seem to provoke. That's not to say that users are not free to oppose speedy changes and have full discussions on them—users have every right to do that—but from what I have seen, in most cases the full CFDs end up with a result that is where the speedy rename would have gotten us. Which is why the speedy criteria exist in the first place!—they are a reflection of fairly consistent and repetitious consensus from full CFDs over the months and years. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a handful of instantly recognisable cities, who's to say which one has primacy - the city or the surrounding region / county / district? Locals are in a much better position to do so. That's why we in Ireland have insisted on the categorical disambiguation for our cities and counties. Who's to say if the same is not true for Belgium? To do otherwise is to risk OR. It's safer to disambiguate categories from an OR perspective and puts no great burden on the reader. In fact it is more likely to assist navigation, which is, after all, the purpose of categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: The editors who make the consensus for the article name make that call. You are correct that Irish editors have numerically ensured that WP:C2D is not applied there but that is an unfortunate precedent. Instead, the city articles in Ireland should also have "(city)" in their title. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Namur (province) has had it's present name since 2014. I see no evidence of Belgian editors agitating to replace it. Where is the evidence for the consensus for the article name (by Belgians hopefully) that you mention? Some talk pages or diffs would be helpful. By the way, I think that it impugns their integrity and intelligence of Irish editors to impute the arrangements for Irish cities and counties to mere numerical superiority at CFD; I like to think the the power of the argument was the decisive thing. Certainly there are many more wikipedians out there that would have vetoed such a position had it violated all logic no matter how numerous the Irish editors. What happened to assuming good faith (as opposed "to might is right")? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: You're right, that wasn't constructive. Forgive me and allow me to restate my perspective in a more collegial way: RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, I'm in favour of the Namur (province) move and I believe most of the other Belgium editors are too. For the record, Dutch and Flemish wiki pages use the "Province of Foo" form which makes so much more sense... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What title to use is often a judgment call and there's tension between the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE policies. WP:C2D leaves that decision to the article space so we don't re-argue everything in CFD discussions. There was a lengthy RM discussion in the category space (here) and the consensus was to rename. When the category name had a speedy request to match the renamed main article, one of the editors who participated in the original article discussion, opposed the corresponding category move (here). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. These are matters that are properly thrashed out with respect to the articles, not with respect to the categories. To have category names that don't mirror article names is more confusing that creating category names that provide disambiguation because certain users think provides clarity. It doesn't—it just leads to more confusion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the precedent of long standing in Ireland (e.g. Category:Galway (city) with a different category for the surrounding county). Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I guess in article space it is less problematic to assign an article as the primary topic (because in the header of the article you can have redirects to other articles) while in category space you can't solve ambiguity that easily. Therefore I would suggest to allow disambiguators in category names even while they don't exist in article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not involved, but completing the intended pings to @TheToch and Tridek Sep:; the template only supports 7 at a time. —烏Γ(kaw), 19:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I didn't realize there was a limit! (Glad I did that alphabetically because I really meant that as a completely neutral notice.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support (change): per Good Olfactory and proposer. I should say that I have a fair amount of experience with Belgian articles here and Belgium more generally and no-one would ever assume "Namur" (without qualifiers) could refer to anything but the city. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support (change): per Brigade Piron, and rationale outlined at the page itself's discussion. Oreo Priesttalk 20:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename because there doesn't seem to be any good reason to disregard WP:C2D. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disambiguation is more needed for category names than article names, so we should leave it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If editors want to categorise biographies meaning "People from province of Namur" they will not pick a category name without the word "province", as "Namur" alone refers clearly to the city. – FayenaticLondon 23:06, 10 November 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.
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 for now. If someone wants to nominate these for deletion, please do so as it sounds like there is some support for this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose changing this category grouping to one by country represented, rather than nationality of the person. As this is a sports competition, the key defining factor is the country for which the person became European champion, less so their nationality (which may be different). The proposed change has parallels with the well-established Category:Olympic gold medalists structure. Also, champions does not need to be capitalised in this context as it a general one.SFB 13:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Errr 'European Champions' in what field/sport? GiantSnowman 10:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suggest we delete as I see no purpose in these. GiantSnowman 11:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Could you elaborate a bit more about why you think the categories divided up by sport are OK, but the all-sport ones divided up by country are not? Thanks. SFB 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are far too wide-ranging and far too vague. GiantSnowman 08:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Categories of these types are supposed to group people who won in a specific competition. These seem to group people who won in any "Europe wide" competition in any sport. This is grouping many different competitions with many different actual potential sets of participants. Something like Winners of Medals at the European Games by nationality would work, but not this random grouping of unrelated competitions. It is not that they are from multiple sports, it is that they are in multiple competitions with no unification at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 16 October 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.
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: I don't believe being a linesman (assistant referee) is notable enough... used only once JMHamo (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining characteristic. GiantSnowman 10:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Today they are assistant referees. The one article is about a person who was subsequently a referee and is categorised as such. Removing this will thus involve no loss of useful data. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 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.
