Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Slovenian Chetniks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Slovenian Chetniks

Category:Montenegrin Chetniks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Montenegrin Chetniks

Category:Christian anarchists by nationality[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. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at CfD and recently recreated. Agreed on the talk page to put this overcategorization back up for upmerge. The triple intersection isn't necessary, as anarchists are already sorted by nationality and sub-ideology in separate categories. And, at 50 items total, we're not looking at needing subcats by necessity. (The 50 items also can be pared down further.) "Christian anarchism" denotes followers of a specific school of anarchist thought, not all anarchists who identify as Christian or vice versa. An anarchist with Christian beliefs and a house in the United States is not necessarily an American Christian anarchist. Also no need to keep the categories as redirects. czar 22:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, yes, I think that would work on the whole czar 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Apart from the obvious flaw of a malformed nomination (the rationale advocates merger, but the cats list includes no merge targets), I substantively oppose merger. Yes some of the subcats are small, but others are not, and nationality is en.wp's conventional way of grouping biographies. And if the categories are to be upmerged, this is a triple intersection which would require triple merge targets: Cat:Christian anarchists, Cat:Fooian anarchists, and Cat:Fooian Christians. In some cases, the Cat:Fooian Christians may not be needed because the page will already be in Cat:Fooian Christian denomination ... but even in those cases, we are still looking at replacing one category with two. Such category clutter impedes both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I don't nominate categories often. @BrownHairedGirl, updated. @Marcocapelle, courtesy ping, though I think the updates are what you supported.
I don't think it's fair to say that triple intersection would "create" triple merge targets. Even with the triple intersection, each article needs further diffusion by type of Christianity and type of anarchism, with some biographies belonging to multiple types. If for purposes of getting through this nomination, it needs to be written as a triple upmerge, okay, but in practice, the proposal is really just to undo the edits that created/added these new cats within the last month rather than assessing these two type trees for each cat member. czar 11:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: thank sfor fixing the listing.
However, this still replaces a need for one category per article with two or three, and breaks up useful sets such as the adequately-populated Category:British Christian anarchists and Category:American Christian anarchists. This seems to me to be unhelpful both to readers navigating and to edtors trying to categorise articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The third merge target is actually seldom relevant because most articles will be in a by-denomination subcategory already (this will be sorted out when manually merging). Perhaps Category:British Christian anarchists and Category:American Christian anarchists may be kept as the best populated categories, although nominator has good point about the triple intersection and the limited total number of articles (a number of 50 is very low for an undiffused biographies category). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge the total size of this category, well under 100, does not justify splitting by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the nominator states, these are recent recreations of categories deleted at cfd in 2009, and so "undo the edits that created/added these new cats" in 2019. Most appear to have been added as a single edit using Hotcat, thus. Oculi (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian anarchists by denomination[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. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Christian anarchists" collects followers of a specific school of anarchist thought, not all anarchists who identify as Christian or vice versa. The subcategory Category:Christian anarchists by denomination defeats the purpose of the original categorization, as the intersection of "Catholic"/"Methodist" and "anarchist" is not a defining trait. That intersection is already handled by separate categories and it is best to not lose the "Christian anarchist" ideological category through further subcategorization. No response at category talk page. I recommend upmerge+delete, as any redirects left behind would be confusing not leaving behind redirects. czar 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. The nominator's rationale advocates merger, but the category listing above advocates deletion. the nom should amke u their mind which is being proposed, and amend the nomination to suit.
If the intent is actually to merge, then the cat listing should say "Cat:A to Cat:B" or "Cat:A to Cat:B and Cat:C". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl, it coincides with the other discussion above. It wouldn't make sense to upmerge "Anabaptist anarchist" to "Christian anarchist" if, as you state above, we keep "American Christian anarchist". I think it's possible to get consensus on whether these categories should exist before whomever executes on making sure the results are sorted into the right categories. Also these categories were added fresh, not diffusing an existing tree, so they can be reversed non-destructively. czar 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: if you list the merge targets, then the bots will handle the ultimate destinations.
In the meantime, you shouldn't leave editors to guess what you actually intend, or give the closng admin the job of trying to interpret the result. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Clarified above. czar 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed not possible to close this discussion as delete if the above discussion is closed as keep. The two nominations should be closed in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle: why? Dleet makes no sense in any circumstances, and I see no logical reason why both cannot be closed as merge, if that was what editors wanted. (I oppose merging the natiobality cats, but that's a separate issue).
@Czar: what do you mean Clarified above? Merge targets are still not listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the "upmerge" since you said it conflicted with the delete. Regardless of how the other discussion closes, the trees are already diffused so there is no need to upmerge this one. czar 02:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is definitely the better phrasing, but if both nominations close as merge the implementation of this second nomination will effectively be the same as deletion because both nominations aim at moving the articles to the same Category:Christian anarchists. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Departments of the University of Dublin, Trinity College[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:Trinity College Dublin. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, for consistency with the category tree Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aloneinthewild: None of the category's contents are "Departments of Trinity College Dublin". TCD's structure is College → Faculties → Schools → Departments. However, none of the entities listed are departments; they are schools or affiliated institutions or interdisciplinary research centres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to merge per BrownHairedGirl. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative merge per BrownHairedGirl. Indeed they are not departments. Oculi (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.

Category:Ecozones[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Biogeographic realm. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had my druthers, I would keep the term "Ecozones", which is much more widely used -- by orders of magnitude on both Google and Google Scholar. Alas, given the unfortunate ambiguity of that term, I'm afraid we have no choice but to Rename this category as proposed.
The discussion at Talk:Biogeographic_realm#"Biogeographic_realms"_and_"ecozones" **is very informative**. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides[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 Category:Small Isles, Lochaber. This option, while not favoured by everyone, is at least acceptable according to most participants in the discussion. Other options were more persistently opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles I proposed using "Highland" to disambiguate but suggested "Inner Hebrides" as an alternative title, however the Small Isles in Argyll and Bute are also part of the Inner Hebrides[1]. I didn't realize that the Inner Hebrides was this far south and though it was more the islands around the Isle of Skye. Therefore while "Inner Hebrides" is more recognizable it doesn't disambiguate especially since the Argyll and Bute Small Isles were the main reason for this needing to be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article Small Isles in main namespace does not seem to require disambiguation. "Inner Hebrides" is a better geographic designation than "Highland". There may be small islands elsewhere in the Hebrides Sea or other bodies of water, but Small Isles capitalized seems to refer explicitly to these islands. Place Clichy (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should pretend that's so. However, as Crouch said at the previous CFD, "Small Isles" locates to by Jura according to the Ordnance Survey[2] and to get the ones everyone knows as the Small Isles you need to search for "The Small Isles"[3] So far as I can see the only ones marked as "Small Isles" on OS maps are the ones off Jura[4] and they are very, very small indeed! Thincat (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either the category should be renamed as proposed to Small Isles, Highland, or it should be moved back to "Small Isles", the current title is unacceptable either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I hoped Hamish Haswell-Smith would help but, most unusually, he does not. He has a full chapter (section 4) "The Small Isles" as you would expect. However, if you look up "Small Isles" in the index you are only referred to section 2.5 "Jura" were there is merely what we would call a passing mention. I'm looking at my first edition. They are all certainly in the Inner Hebrides. Thincat (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazetteer for Scotland has an entry on them as well as those in Highland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Move back to Category:Small Isles at the light of the discussion above. If no one is certain that these islands are collectively called Small Isles, then the article should probably not be called that. There are many small isles in the world. Anyway, the renaming discussion should be held at the article talk page, probably with a call for discussion at the Scotland project page. Category should follow the article's name per C2D. Place Clichy (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would support renaming the category to Category:Small Isles. This would match the article Small Isles and the template Template:Small Isles. The group of populated islands including Eigg is clearly the primary topic for the name. If anyone were to decide the tiny uninhabited islands off Jura deserved an article and a category, they could be disambiguated as Small Isles, Jura, but as far as I can see we don't have coverage of these at present. The current disambiguation is unhelpful as both the Eigg Small Isles and the Jura Small Isles lie within the Inner Hebrides. As pointed out above, the Ordnance Survey labels the Eigg group "The Small Isles" and the Jura group simply "Small Isles", but this distinction is not reflected in general usage, where the Eigg group would always be understood unless Jura was obvious from the context. --Deskford (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deskford: Draft now at User:Crouch, Swale/Small Isles, Argyll and Bute, however I doubt that we will need a category for the Jura ones anytime soon. @Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron: who participated in the previous discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to see that waiting in the wings! Per WP:UKPLACE we don't use "Argyll and Bute" as a disambiguator, though. My suggestion was "Small Isles, Jura", using the parent island, but maybe "Small Isles, Argyll" would be closer to the spirit of the naming convention. --Deskford (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose using "Jura" as the parent island fits the spirit of the "placename, island/island chain" convention even though Jura isn't an island group (which is actually part of Islay group according to the article). Note we have Sheep Island, Argyll but the Commons category is at Category:Sheep Island, Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The OS label "The Small Isles" appears to refer to the Small Isles National Scenic Area, not the island group. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The label that appears SW of Rùm in 1:50000 mapping (hope this link works!) appears to me to refer to the islands. --Deskford (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that link works and does indeed appear to refer to the island group but as "The Small Isles". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to Category:Small Isles, Highland to avoid ambiguity. Those such as @Place Clichy who cite WP:C2D appear not to have read it thoroughly, because it says explicitly " If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply, even if an article is the primary topic of its name."
Ambiguity in category names is a nuisance, because most articles are categorised either by using WP:HOTCAT or by directly entering the code in the edit box. In both cases, the hideously crude software displays no guidance to the editor about the actual scope and purpose of the category, so we need a category which does exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. have a clear and unambiguous category title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support that general approach. My wariness is that, even if "Small Isles, Highland" is unambiguous, "Highland" is very much not so. Category:Highland redirects to Category:Highlands and that includes all sorts of highlands all over the place and has a very general article Highland as its main article. All I feel pretty sure about is that Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides is unsuitable. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem, @Thincat, but I think this a matter of choosing the least worst option. "Small Isles, Highland" is not perfect ... but so far, it seems better than any alternative.
The only option I can see is to disambiguate with some sort of parenthesised list as "Small isles (Eigg etc)", which seems ugly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Highland" to disambiguate would only be an issue if there are other Small Isles in other Highlands, it doesn't otherwise matter that the qualifier "Highland" is ambiguous. Newton, Surrey isn't a village in Surrey and Queens Park, Ipswich isn't a park in Ipswich. Commons:Category:Highland is about a house in Virginia which already has an incorrect image which I will move tomorrow. Possibly Category:Highland should be a DAB page here with Category:Highland (council area) Category:Highland, California and Category:Highland, Maryland but Category:Highlands could be viewed as the broader category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a problem, because there are two groups both called "Small Isles" in Inner Hebrides: one in the Argyll and Bute area and the other in Highland area. That is a clear case of ambiguity. This was not clear when the original rename was done. Calling any Isles "Highland" is counterintuitive, but seems to be technically correct. I see no reason why the disambiguator has to be unambiguous. The Argyll and Bute case does not need a category, because all the islands are uninhabited and have redlinks. The present name does however need to become a dab-category with the target renamed to Category:Small Isles, Highland. An alternative might be to keep the present name and deal with this dab-issue in a headnote, saying that the category covers an archipelago in within Highland region, not Small Isles, Argyll and Bute. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping the current title would be a bit silly since the Argyll and Bute islands were the original reason for this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Small Isles, Highland (I commented above). Thincat (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This looks very much like trying to create a solution where no problem exists. On closer examination I note that the category was at Category:Small Isles until very recently, and I see no reason not to move it back to where it has been for most of its existence. The islands including Eigg and Rùm are the clear primary topic for the name "Small Isles", and these are what anyone in Scotland would understand by the term unless the context specified the tiny uninhabited islands off Jura. If it is decided to disambiguate, the above suggestions of "Small Isles, Highland" are inappropriate – per WP:UKPLACE we use districts as disambiguators within Highland, so we would use "Small Isles, Lochaber". My opinion, though, remains that no disambiguator is needed. --Deskford (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The original rename was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Category:Small Isles I'd be fine with using the district to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisting comment, there is a clear consensus to rename the category but no clear consensus about the target. Options discussed are:
Option A: Category:Small Isles, Highland as nominated
Option B: Category:Small Isles
Option C: Category:Small Isles, Lochaber as suggested late in the discussion
Especially with respect to the 3rd option, more input would be welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armenian parliament shooting[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Currently contains only the head article Armenian parliament shooting. The only other possible content which I can see is Category:Victims of the Armenian parliament shooting (itself a single item category, but could be populated with more).
The shooting appears to have been a significant event in Armenian political history, but per WP:CAT categories exist to facilitate navigation between articles, not to somehow indicate the perceived importance of a topic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Case reports journals[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 to delete, therefore rename. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: proper grammar Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a speedy, I just thought Twinkle would give that option. Apparently not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of these redirect to a list of non-notable journals by a single borderline fraudulent publisher. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And many don't. The category is legit, however it is wrongly named. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's both lending undue weight to the existence of these specific journals, denying the potential for expansion, and suppressing knowledge. The encyclopedia isn't made better by deleting this category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can easily be recreated when more content is available. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but they also do not need to be pointlessly deleted either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. If the cat only contained those three "real journals", we wouldn't be having this discussion. And Hindawi is not a "borderline fraudulent" publisher, as far as I know. They're peculiar (their journals have no editor-in-chief) and they're the most profitable publisher around (few people realize how profitable OA is), but not fraudulent. Anyway, if people really think this is a big problem, those redirects could be collected in a "List of Hindawi case studies journals" and then this cat would have 4 legitimate entries. --Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politics and violence[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Political violence and its subcats. The three categories were created to parent the single-item Category:Armenian parliament shooting, which is already in Category:Terrorist incidents in Armenia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Countries of the Indian Ocean[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2013, but was then re-created (by a now-blocked editor). However, the new category's parent, text and contents indicates that it is just for island countries so the category name should also indicate this. Note: there is List of sovereign states and dependent territories in the Indian Ocean. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

NCAA Men's Division I Final Four basketball players by year and subcategories 1939–present[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories
Category:Basketball players at the 1939 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1940 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1941 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1942 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1943 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1944 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1945 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1946 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1947 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1948 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1949 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1950 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1951 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1952 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1953 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1954 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1955 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1956 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1957 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1958 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1959 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1960 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1961 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1962 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1963 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1964 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1965 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1966 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1967 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1968 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1969 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1970 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1971 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1972 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1973 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1974 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1975 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1976 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1977 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1978 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1980 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1981 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1982 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1980 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1981 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1982 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1983 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1984 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1985 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1986 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1987 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1988 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1989 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1990 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1991 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1992 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1993 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1994 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1995 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1996 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1997 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1998 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 1999 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2000 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2001 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2002 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2003 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2004 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2005 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2006 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2009 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2010 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2016 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2017 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Category:Basketball players at the 2018 NCAA Men's Division I Final Four
Nominator's rationale: While they're not small, none of these categories can ever have more than 48 articles, and they fail WP:PERFCAT ... we don't have corresponding categories for players in each Super Bowl, each year's World Series, each Stanley Cup final etc. We don't even have a category for each year's Final Four that this would presumably go under. Seems like fancruft, really. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Disclosure, I did create many of these categories. First, I would challenge if WP:PERFCAT applies here. The entire guideline is geared towards the fine arts (athletes aren't "performers" per se). If this is meant to also apply to sportspeople, I would expect to see at least some sportspeople examples given here - there are none, which is strange since there are a large number of sports articles on Wikipedia. Second, we do have a large number of categories that are essentially "sportspeople at the Year Foo Event" categories, such as these and these and these. I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but at the same time we need guidance as to which situations are allowed and which are not if we are to go picking and choosing which to delete. I'm also not aware of a rule that each Final Four needs a category for these to map up into - is that actually a guideline? If so, someone please post a link. The Final Four is the signature event of college basketball, which is 3-4 games, involving four teams (making it different from a Super Bowl or World Series involving only two teams). For those who aren't familiar with American college sport, the event annually draws 130,000+ fans live and 16-20 million on television. When the categories were AfD'ed, I asked myself if a player appearing in the Final Four was in fact WP:DEFINING - a fair question. So I looked at the obituaries of players who had died in the last year and went to the Final Four as college players. I excluded those who actually won the championship, as you could argue a championship may be more likely to appear in an obituary than a Final Four appearance. What I found was that most, if not all do list the Final Four in their obituaries - examples here and here and here and here and here. If no one else agrees the categories should remain, then I can live with that. But if WP:PERFCAT is actually the reason, that's a problem and I think the guideline should be rewritten to include sports examples. Rikster2 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, PERFCAT does have a non-limiting parenthetical: "...(but are not limited to)..." in its sentence. And I think it applies here. I don't think you can find any meaningful distinction between "performer by performance" and "athlete by contest". I am not entirely sure that the other such categories you cite are really justifiable either, though if we do decide here that this criterion extends to athletes, I agree that some language to that effect should be added.

Your obituary test might be a good argument for it being a defining category, except for the fact that on enough of those pages that we might as well assume it applies to all of them, you specifically wrote that the category is only for players who participated in any of their team's games in that Final Four, further limiting its potential reach. So merely being on a team that went to the Final Four isn't enough, you seem to have conceded, since (understandably) Perry Pinerider shouldn't get to call himself a "Final Four" player because he did little, if any, actual playing.

Which then introduces a more subjective criterion for the category: what, exactly, are we to deem "participating" in the games? Getting something measurable in the box score? So, then, a guy who gets in in the last minute of a garbage time game his team is losing decisively and then deliberately fouls someone so the stats show his presence on the court (I've heard this happens, even in the NBA) has "participated"? I can't wait for the talk-page debates on this sort of thing .

Looking at your obits, I also noticed two things about them: 1) they generally have some local reason to note the former player's passing and 2) they all note that the deceased was somehow a key part of that team reaching the Final Four. I would argue that it's not that they were on a Final Four team so much as that they helped that team get there that makes that Final Four appearance a defining characteristic.

Here's a challenge: if you can find obituaries of players on Final Four teams who mostly sat on the bench those seasons (and during the semifinal, and final if the team got that far), from well outside their local markets, players who never played organized basketball after college, and if there are as many of them for which this is true as it is for players who went on to pro careers afterwards, then you might have a point about it being a defining characteristic.

Even still, I could see two other OCAT sections these might fall foul of: WP:OVERLAPCAT (which does mention a sports example, i.e. MLB All-Star players) and WP:NARROWCAT. I admit that in this case the former is more constrained in its relevance because no player could possibly be in more than four of these (is anyone? I know some, especially Wooden-era UCLA stars like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, are in three), but I still think that could be enough to apply. As for NARROWCAT, 48 potential members tops is still a rather small fraction of the men who play college basketball every year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments since I am on way out the door for the day:
  1. I really don’t see the parallel with WP:PERFCAT. That guideline gives examples like “Actresses who have appeared veiled,” “Actors who have played Dr. Who,” “Actors by series” (such as MASH) and “Fictional characters played by Johnny Depp.” I am sorry, none of those are a clear parallel to sports. Again, if the category is meant to apply to sports, it should either be rewritten to include a broader set of examples that actually show sport vs. arts or write a guideline (using consensus) around “competition by competitor” pertaining to athletes. “But not limited to” is not a universal statement allowing reach into anything remotely similar. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a clearer PERFCAT analogy: imagine Category:Actors who have appeared in Best Picture-winning films. Or to make it more exact, Category:Actors who appeared in films nominated for Best Picture in 1985. As I type, I expect those to come out red. I don't see how one could distinguish them from these cats under discussion, or decline to apply the same logic, just because they concern sports rather than the performing arts (and at bottom, these are both public entertainments—yes, in one you keep score and award championships to the winners, but I don't see that as a difference significant enough to exempt sports categorically (ahem) from PERFCAT.

    No, "but not limited to" is not limitless in its application, but it is in there because it has some application outside the stated examples; IMO it is broad enough to encompass sports as well as performance. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the problem, one has to really stretch to make PERFCAT fit an athlete vs. a fine arts figure. Why would the description specifically read "actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." instead of " actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), athletes/coaches, politicians, businesspeople, educators, etc.?" Why are 100% of the examples fine arts ones? The guideline has been around for YEARS and sport articles are in the tens of thousands. You are basically making another WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument based on who the Arts wikiprojects have chosen to categorize. "Performance" is not "competition." They are two different things with different qualities. Rikster2 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The categories have an objective standard for inclusion - despite your confusion, “appearing” in a game (the categories don’t say “participated,” as you wrote above) is clear. If a player checks into a game, they have played in it, regardless as to whether they generated any statistics - and they’d appear in a box score as such so it’s verifiable.
    OK, I quoted incorrectly, but I'd argue that's a distinction without a difference, as your definition of "getting off the bench" means basically the same thing AFAIC. The salient point is that you limited the categories to players who do more than get dressed and sit on the bench (What about players who were injured? Certainly there are some examples, especially of players who later went on to successful NBA careers, who were on injured reserve while their teams made the Final Four. Do they get to be in these categories?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this an important point in determining whether or not these categories should exist? Hint, it isn't, you could define the category either way. The point is that criteria for inclusion needs to be clear, and it is for all of these categories. Rikster2 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no standard that says a category must make a person notable. There IS a standard that categories should be “defining.” I’d be willing to bet that a non-notable person DOES mention appearing in a Final Four in their obit, but it doesn’t really matter as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable subjects. We have a category for “Yale University alumni,” but that certainly doesn’t mean that every Yale alum must be notable for the category to exist. So, no, I don’t need to go find obits for non-notable players to justify these categories existence.
    And I'll say it again: I am not convinced that being on a team that made the Final Four is a defining category (And there are a lot more Yale alumuni who could potentially be so categorized than there are former Final Four players).

    To go back to what started this, if we were to consider Gavin Smith's notability as deriving strictly from his college basketball career, I think his still-standing scoring record at Hawaii far outweighs his minimal contribution to UCLA's championship teams the two years before that (In fact, a fellow editor said as much to me at a meetup at the time as I was justifying why I had created an article on him rather than his disappearance). Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone can be notable on several fronts. Smith likely first met WP:GNG as a high school All-American, actually, not as a college player and not as a film figure. He then became notable in both of those other arenas. Also, a category does not have to be THE ONLY defining thing in everyone in it's life. Mike Warren would have been notable as an All-American basketball player even if he'd never been heard of again. He would have been notable if he'd come out of obscurity to become a television actor. The category is defining for MANY. If there are a few exceptions where other things are "more defining" that doesn't mean the category is not a defining one overall. For example, Gavin Smith is in the UCLA Bruins men's basketball player category. Under your logic that should be removed because that isn't defining FOR HIM. That's bogus reasoning. The category is defining for the majority of people in it, and it applies to him. Rikster2 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You aren’t actually correct on the obits. Without going back to look I know at least three are national sources or from different states than the college who the person person played for attended. One I know to be the case is Len Chappell, for whom I used a New York Times obit.
    While the Times is a national source, I think that its interest in running a lengthy obit on Chappell can be explained by this one sentence: "Len Chappell, an All-American at Wake Forest who became an N.B.A. All-Star forward with the Knicks", making his life and career local to New York. The Courier-Journal obit likewise is about a former player on one of ... Louisville's Final Four teams, and the one from Nebraska is about a guy from Iowa, just across the river from Omaha. Yes, two are from national sources, but if the Final Four was so defining in a player's life I'd expect all the obits of former Final Four players to have run in national sources. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Chappell's Final Four appearance in the state of North Carolina is not necessary information in an obituary in a paper local to where he played professionally. It would not be in there if not defining to who he is. Once again, you are conflating "notability" with "defining." The question isn't if Chappell is notable (he is btw), it is if the Final Four appearance is defining. You maybe could make the case that the obit was only from the perspective of his local paper if I'd used the Winston-Salem Journal, where Wake Forest University is. To that readership, they may mostly know Chappell as a college player who led the school to a FF. That's not the case with the NY Times. Also, ESPN.com and MSN.com are national sources. For the Nebraska-Iowa thing, that player's notability comes solely from his college career (he was an All-American player at Iowa), so given that of course the Final Four appearances are defining. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I was aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists when I write my argument, and explicitly said so. However, I was responding to your Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument that there were no similar categories for World Series or Super Bowl participants. I will also reiterate something you mentioned which is a key difference for a college-themed category vs. professional figures. A college athlete, as you said, can only possible play in a total of four Final Fours. Tom Brady is playing in his ninth Super Bowl on Sunday. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rikster2 arguments. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unconvinced by the premise of the nomination, and no other delete arguments have been presented for consideration. WP:PERFCAT, as Rikster2 commented, only has examples for artists. My understanding was we don't want a category in the bio for each of the countless performances a performer is involved in. Athletes are competitors, and this is a category for those who reached the milestone of reaching the Final Four. I'd estimate that less than 5% of American basketball players with articles have this category, and rarely will a player have made it to the Final Four more than once. Not only are athletes not "performers" as discusses at PERFCAT, this category class doesn't pose the same problem of flooding a page with countless more categories. If size is the concern, then upmerge. I'd also be wary of a double standard for non-politicians, as Category:American political candidates by year exists, which must introduce a slew of categories for lifetime politicians on par with performers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organizations based in Oman[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: keep. Additionally, the later proposal of renaming the defunct organi(z/s)ations subcategory is now moot, since it was renamed via speedy renaming. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:TIES, given Oman was formerly part of the British Empire. If renamed, I will list the affected subcategories at WP:CFD/S. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Jpbowen) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Procedurally, if the intention is to rename the subcats, then they should be listed here and tagged. CFDS is not a mechanism to enable incomplete CFD noms.
    Substantively, I see no advantage to this change. It merely displaces inconsistencies from one category tree to another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We can discuss procedure elsewhere, but there is no requirement for a CFR to encompass every affected subcategory—why tag dozens of pages needlessly if people disagree with the change in the first place—and CFD/S is in fact entirely appropriate for aligning the names of subcategories to their parent category. As for your point on substance, would you please clarify what you mean by "displaces inconsistencies from one category tree to another"? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, British English also allows 'organizations' so let's then have all organizations categories with a 'z'. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree 100% with @Marcocapelle about this. Maybe even 200%.
    This is not a standard WP:ENGVAR issue, because unlike gasoline/petrol or braces/suspenders there is a variant which is acceptable in all forms of English.
    I have been meaning for the last few months to start an RFC on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see your point, but that argument will be convincing only after someone successfully changes Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom to use 'z'. On the broader point, I do favor all categories using either 'organizations' or 'organisations', but that's a topic for a much larger nomination. Currently, Category:Organizations by country largely follows MOS:TIES, and we should not forgo applying an existing (albeit imperfect) naming convention due to an expectation of a more perfect convention at some indeterminate point in the future that may never come. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Falcon: that's such a crude misrepresentation of the situation that I am surprised to see it.
    In this case, Oman's current ties to the UK are tenuous. And the UK is not a consistent user of the "s" spelling. That's two layers of tenuousness in the case for applying MOS:TIES..
    On top of that, this proposal to rename all the categories without tagging and listing them all for this full discussion deprives the proposal of proper scrutiny. Given @Black Falcon's experience of CFD, I find it hard to see a good faith explanation for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sympathize with poor eyesight, but I completely disagree that changing the naming convention for a category carries an obligation to nominate every subcategory at the same time—that is needlessly bureaucratic in my opinion. For example, on the point of "proper scrutiny", in what way is the scrutiny in this discussion less than proper or appropriate? Regarding my supposed misrepresentation, quite simply I fail to see it. I do not dispute the tenuousness of Oman's current ties to the UK, but MOS:TIES does not specify "current" ties and my argument is based on historical ties. We can, of course, have a reasonable disagreement about whether those historical ties are significant enough in this context, and I acknowledge, based on the opposition from several editors, yourself included, whose judgment I respect, that my view of it may be off the mark. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I proposed the speedy renaming of the only inconsistency Category:Defunct organisations based in Oman within the category (opposed by Black Falcon) so it is startling to find that Black Falcon expects to rename everything else via this nom + speedies. I agree entirely that British English also allows 'organizations' and in any case a link in 2019 between Oman and the UK is rather tenuous. (Oman does not appear to mention the British Empire.) Oculi (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it startling? I explained in my opposing comment that I thought the parent should be renamed, provided notification of this nomination, and indicated that your proposed change to Category:Defunct organisations based in Oman should proceed via WP:CFD/S if this nomination failed. Consistent with this, I certainly have no further objection to Category:Defunct organisations based in Oman being renamed to 'z' given the opposition to this nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and instead ALT-1: Propose renaming the odd-one-out subcat Category:Defunct organisations based in Oman to Category:Defunct organizations based in Oman. I have tagged that one today. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support ALT-1. Oculi (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT-1. I can't see why Oman's rather tenuous ties to the British Empire should be used to link it to a contested spelling convention in a language which is not officially used in the country. I bet Omanis who use English spell organization with a z. Agree that we should move to a consistent use of the word organization unless actual local usage can be demonstrated. Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT-1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support ALT-1, well in line with my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ALT-1 has now been processed from the Speedy page, as the objections which had originally been raised there were withdrawn.[5] – Fayenatic London 08:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to based our spellings on historical ties to the British Empire then they should all be changed to z because that is how the word was spelt at that time, and, presumably, that is how the British who brought them civilization taught them to spell it. That is why Americans spell with a Z. I'm hoping someone more experienced than me will take this to an RFC, because our present practice is ridiculous. Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to organisations which is the more usual spelling in Oman. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that there is fairly wide agreement that as far as categorization is concerned the present situation is a mess and changing most of the country categories to Z would not be inconsistent with our wider principles. There are probably countries where S is more appropriate, but it doesn't make much sense in places where English is not a native language, or where links to the British Empire are weak. So how do we make progress? Are we obliged to rename leading articles? If so which, as there are not many articles along the lines of "Organizations in Foo"?Rathfelder (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oman is not a place "where links to the British Empire are weak". For heaven's sake, the UK had a military presence in Oman through at least the 1970s, supporting the 1970 Omani coup d'état and actively helping to suppress the Dhofar Rebellion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would want to see linguistic ties to Britain. I dont think a military presence is relevent to spelling practices. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For info, RFC is now open at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names. – Fayenatic London 10:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Expatriates from Georgia (country)[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: Option A. Timrollpickering (Talk)
Propose renaming
OPTION A (use "from Georgia (country)")
42 more
OPTION B (use "Georgian expatriate")
Nominator's rationale: Standardise on one format or the the other. Either:
  1. OPTION A, which follows the convention of Category:People from Georgia (country), or
  2. OPTION B, which follows the "Fooian expatriates" convention of Category:Expatriates by nationality.
I much prefer OPTION A, because just as "Georgian people" is ambiguous between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state), "Georgian expatriates" is ambiguous between the country and the US state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget consistent with option B. Option B uses an adjective, while option A uses a preposition and object. Option B is preferable. It puts the most distinguishing word, "Georgian", first, and next to "expatriates", which it modifies, and it is more concise. An expatriate is one who lives outside one's native country, so disambiguation is probably unnecessary. Even if it were, I would still prefer "Georgian (country) expatriate...". --Bsherr (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to make a good case for renaming Category:People from Georgia (country) and its subcats, but I see no reason to adopt a new format for expats.
Nor is it true to say that "An expatriate is one who lives outside one's native country, so disambiguation is probably unnecessary". Google Books searches (which concentrate reliable sources) throw up plenty of hits for expatriates from US states, e.g. "expatriate Texan"/"Texan expatriate" and "expatriate Californian"/"Californian expatriate ", "New York expatriate", "expatriate New Yorker". So whatever any of us might think about whether expatriate applies only to countries, the reality is that it is also applied to US states. So there is an ambiguity issue here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Could you give me a little more explanation? I'm not following. "From Georgian" is not grammatically correct. I'm not proposing that and, based on the red links above, we don't have any categories named that way.
Yes, I qualified my contention that disambiguation was unnecessary with "probably" for just that reason. I believe dictionaries define expatriate as one who lives outside one's native country. Reliable sources is a term of art used to determine whether an article meets Wikipedia:Notability or WP:COMMONNAME, but no guideline says word definitions should be determined this way. Actually, the contrary; it's Wikipedia:Original research. Some writers use "expatriate" hyperbolically. Is there any authoritative source like a dictionary that defines expatriate to include subnational origins? --Bsherr (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: sorry, "from Georgian (country)" was a clumsy typo which I clumsily replicated. Now corrected to "from Georgia (country)" per the current convention. I hope that the resulting blue links make more sense of my comment.
In assessing ambiguity, I don't think that "authoritative sources" are a determining factor or even a significant factor. What matters is whether readers and editors are likely to find the titles ambiguous, and the evidence of "expatriate" being used in practice to refer to states is evidence that there is an ambiguity issue here, however much anyone might wish that there wasn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which I'd support... GiantSnowman 09:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: fine, I'm sure you'd make a case for that if you choose to make that group nomination. But that proposal has not been made yet ... so in the meantime, while Category:People from Georgia (country) remains as it is, what's your rationale for wanting to break that convention? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor the inclination for that headache - but to follow the convention of Category:Expatriates by nationality. 'Georgian' as a nationality refers to one thing only - and it's not the US state. GiantSnowman 13:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Georgia is already already an exception in Category:People by nationality, and Category:Expatriates by nationality inherits its conventions in all other cases, including Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A we use this form consistently to avoid confusion. This is a longstanding convention because it would be confusing. Beyond this, those who insist that the two are never equivalent show severe historical myopic. Georgia was until 28 years ago and had been for about 200 years or so a part of a larger nation. On the other hand, from 1776-1789 Georgia in North America was virtually an indepdent country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The linked Commons category was deleted. See Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard. Bsherr (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Patriot Bowl[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing. These categories were emptied by @UCO2009bluejay with the following edit summary: "patriot bowl not a bowl game see discussion here". The first category included only its main article and the second had three college football season articles. See the Wayback Machine for a snapshot. - Eureka Lott 01:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_20&oldid=891108393"