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 (non-admin closure). Note that I left redirects, to avoid possible future confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already checked that all pages are in the corresponding lakes category, so no need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – needless duplication. "Lakes of" categories are sufficient. NI lakes are already in both categories, so minimal change needed. Declangi (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: the use of "lakes" vs "loughs" on Irish categories was discussed extensively at CfD 2018 April 7#Lakes of the Republic of Ireland, where the consensus was to accept the piles of evidence I presented that Irish usage prefers "Lakes" as the collective noun. I would have included the Northern Ireland "loughs" cats in that nomination if I had been aware of their existence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Data. To test actual usage in Northern Ireland, I did the following searches in reliable sources using Fermanagh because it has 3 major lakes (Lough Melvin & the 2 Lough Ernes). The results show an overwhelming preference for "Lakes". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't the faintest idea how these random esoteric Google searches prove anything. Fancy finding any books or sources about lakes or loughs in Northern Ireland? Wouldn't you consider Google maps and Ordnance Survey to be far more reliable proof of what the lakes of Northern Ireland are called? Sionk (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk:random esoteric???? What earth are you on about? Those searches are neither random nor esoteric. As set out at WP:COMMONNAME they a comprehensive tests of which collective noun is used in WP:reliable sources: same set of phrases applied to both loughs and lakes and repeated on 3 sets of sources. The result is exceptionally clearcut. Maps are utterly useless because they do not use text to describe a set. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether people use the word 'lough' or 'lake' to describe these bodies of water in Northern Ireland, not whether they use the titles of Wikipedia categories "Loughs of Fermanagh" etc. I would say newspaper articles such as this one in the Belfast Telegraph and this one in The Independent (London)clearly show the word 'lough' is used in the English language to describe these bodies of water. For that matter, there's an official body called the Loughs Agency. This is not a word solely used in Irish Gaelic, but commonly used in English. Sionk (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: You misunderstand the issues on all 3 points:
You say The issue is whether people use the word 'lough' or 'lake' to describe these bodies of water in Northern Ireland. Not so: a) our usage here is not naming individual lakes; it is what collective noun is most commonly used when referring to groups of them, as we do in these category titles. b) per WP:COMMONNAME, the test is not some vague "people use"; it is "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Note: reliable sources. Hence my numeric data on reliable sources.
Cherry-picked examples to support your case do not address the test of what is most commonly used. Your reliance on 2 examples is like saying that you can identify 2 American men called "John", so most American men are called "John".
There is indeed an official body called the Loughs Agency. If you had taken 30 seconds to follow the link at the top of that page to http://www.loughs-agency.org/about-us/, then you have seen that there's an official body called the Loughs Agency which is responsible for 2 sea loughs, rather than the freshwater lakes in these categories. You could also have learnt that by reading the previous discussion to which I linked yesterday: CfD 2018 April 7#Lakes of the Republic of Ireland.
It is disappointing to have to waste time refuting the falsehoods posted by an editor who chooses not to read linked policy, not to read a linked previous discussion, and not even to read a website which they cite in evidence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! No need to be so aggressive. For "cherry picked examples" I think you actually mean "examples", which I've provided in contrast to you. It's no skin off my nose if the categories are renamed, but maybe you'd like to restore some credibility by finding sources that show the majority of people talke about "lakes" in Northern Ireland. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two examples picked and cited without any attempt to assess statistical significance = Cherry picked examples.
As to sources that show common usage: see the data table above.
I'm sorry that you feel your credibility is dented, but I'm sure you will recover elegantly when you read and digest the naming policy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about sea loughs, not freshwater lakes. As with the Loughs Agency, it would have been better if you had read beyond the headline. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (1) Duplication is bad. (2) we have already established here that the common collective noun for lakes in Ireland is "lakes", not "loughs". This is true for Northern Ireland as it is for the Republic. For the record, I find BHG's data from Google Books, Google Scholar and Jstor compelling evidence in favour. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I strongly suspect that this category cannot grow any larger, though I didn’t look as thoroughly as last time. One of these, Gethen, is not truly an ice planet any more than our Earth is/has been. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the low article count, there is no need to subcategorise from the parent at the moment IMO. SFB 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename and redirect. – FayenaticLondon 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as speedy rename to match parent article. SFB 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a defunct team that existed for just one year and whose article page is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose merge the measurable natural phenomena should remain in "Meteorological phenomena" as a phenomenon is a very specific type of concept. Non-phenomena should be grouped and renamed under Category:Meteorological concepts – I'm not sure what the addition of "basic" is doing here, especially as a non-"basic" parent does not exist. SFB 21:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
