Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Category:Trans men in film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Category:Trans men in film

Category:LGBT-related films about religion[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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related films about religion to Category:Films about LGBT and religion
Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related films about Christianity to Category:Films about LGBT and Christianity
Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related films about Islam to Category:Films about LGBT and Islam
Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related films about Jews and Judaism to Category:Films about LGBT and Judaism

Nominator's rationale: rename, there is no reason to put one of the themes before "films" and the other one after. It would also make it consistent with subCategory:Documentary films about LGBT and religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2020 (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:People banned from entering Ukraine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People banned from entering Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the one article in it and re-creation of category previously deleted at CFD. DexDor^(talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; non-defining, tiny, and recreation. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. Hog Farm (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 per others. I strongly recommend salting. ミラ P 14:47, 1 February 2020 (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:Principals of Jaffna Central 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: Dual upmerge Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Principals of Jaffna Central College to Category:Faculty of Jaffna Central College

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT, also to Category:Heads of schools in Sri Lanka. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge; fails WP:NARROWCAT. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge and WP:TROUT the nominator for yet another nomination that would remove content from a valid parent hierarchy. @Rathfelder: Why is it that you keep proposing one-sided merges, despite plenty of prior advice on this topic? – Fayenatic London 11:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the subcategories of Category:Heads of schools in Sri Lanka only have 1 or 2 articles. Is it worth keeping? Rathfelder (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heads of schools in Sri Lanka definitely is worth keeping. It has plenty of subcats and suppose all subcats are upmerged it will have more than 20 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was what I meant. Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (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:Principals of Hartley 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: dual upmerge. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Principals of Hartley College to Category:Faculty of Hartley College

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual upmerge (Category:Heads of schools in Sri Lanka too) per WP:NARROWCAT. Only a single upmerge is needed if this discussion results in a dual upmerge. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:39, 1 February 2020 (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:Physical punishments[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. MER-C 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Physical punishments to Category:Corporal punishments

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical punishment —151.254.175.198 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (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:Aryabhatta Knowledge University[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:Universities in Bihar. – Fayenatic London 09:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aryabhatta Knowledge University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has only one page and has no scope for further categorization of articles {{WP:SMALL}}. Another category exists for categorization of articles on this topic {{Category:Colleges affiliated to Aryabhatta Knowledge University‎}}. GargAvinash (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Engineering colleges in Bihar, per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Category:Universities in Bihar. This appears in fact to be something like a coalition of 50 or 60 (independent or affiliated) colleges. As such there is no obvious scope for expansion as many of the colleges have their own articles. Engineering colleges is the wrong target, because some of the colleges focus on medicine, pharmacy or technology. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that may work too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2020 (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:Nigerian-Romanian people[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: selectively merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nigerian-Romanian people to Category:Romanian people of Nigerian descent

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category for the same topic. Proposing to merge to the established category with our prefered format. Darwinek (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom but purge -- This is the standard format. However one of the people I sampled is a German footballer with a Romanian mother and Nigerian father: does he belong? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2020 (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:Depression (psychology)[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 4. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Depression (psychology) to Category:Major depressive disorder

Nominator's rationale: Option 1, rename to Category:Major depressive disorder per main article Major depressive disorder; option 2, rename to Category:Depression (mood) per main article Depression (mood); option 3, split between Category:Major depressive disorder and Category:Depression (mood). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: pinging nominator of speedy nomination for this category who proposed option 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Although I'm not an expert here, the category seems to contain both topics. E.g. List of people with major depressive disorder or Major depressive episode belong to Category:Major depressive disorder while other belong to Category:Depression (mood), including all current subcategories. Brandmeister^talk 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK for renaming to Category:Depression (mood), oppose renaming to Category:Major depressive disorder, oppose splitting into Category:Major depressive disorder and Category:Depression (mood), OK with a new option 4 adding Category:Major depressive disorder as a new subcategory of the renamed Depression (mood) and moving some articles to the subcategory, and OK with the status quo. My first choices are option 2 and option 4. ↠Pine (✉) 02:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between option 3 and 4? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: The difference is that instead of splitting the category into two distinct categories which may or may not have a common parent category, the current category would be retained but renamed to Category:Depression (mood), and Category:Major depressive disorder would be added as a new subcategory of Category:Depression (mood). ↠Pine (✉) 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, based on the above discussion, I tend to option 3 and 4 the most, while I perceive option 4 as a specific execution of option 3. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (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:Fishing manufacturers and suppliers[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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fishing manufacturers and suppliers to Category:Fishing equipment manufacturers

Nominator's rationale: rename, (1) it requires "equipment" in the category name, per parent categories Category:Fishing equipment and Category:Water sports equipment manufacturers; (2) any retail companies such as Bass Pro Shops should be moved to parent Category:Fishing industry as we do not generally mix up manufacturers and retail in one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: pinging contributor in speedy discussion who proposed Category:Fishing equipment manufacturers and suppliers instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. In that proposal I was just picking up the point that Armbrust had made on that page. However, I support the nomination above, as there are no other categories named "manufacturers and" [retailers/etc.]. Retailers currently in the category should be added to Category:Sporting goods retailers and Category:Recreational fishing, or local sub-cats thereof, rather than Category:Fishing industry. – Fayenatic London 11:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough regarding the alternative merge targets for the retailers articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion on Speedy page

Category:Fishing manufacturers and suppliers to Category:Fishing equipment manufacturers, requires "equipment", C2C per parent categories Category:Fishing equipment and Category:Water sports equipment manufacturers. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedily removing "suppliers" from the title, as that would change the scope of the category. For example Bass Pro Shops is a retailer and not a manufacturer. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fishing manufacturers and suppliers to Category:Fishing equipment manufacturers and suppliers – C2C per parent Category:Fishing equipment. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 31 January 2020 (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:Wikipedians in this category[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. WP:SNOW deletion. JBW (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in this category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There needs to be a point where creating these pointless categories should be stopped. Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Apparently one of the most ridiculous categories we've ever had. Brandmeister^talk 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Brandmeister pointless category created by a now-indef'd troll sock. ——SN 54129 15:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; useless. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless category. The humorous category template on the category page was created by the same indeffed user, and is also up for deletion. Looks like somebody just wanted to make a walled garden of garbage. Hog Farm (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as useless and unfunny. Glades12 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2020 (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.

Categories:Marine fauna of ... Australia to Marine fish of Australia[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; no consensus to rename at this time. Multiple users suggested creating subcategories for Marine fish instead. b uidhe 19:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marine fauna of Australia to Marine fish of Australia
Propose renaming Category:Marine fauna of Western Australia to Marine fish of Western Australia
Propose renaming Category:Marine fauna of Northern Australia to Marine fish of Northern Australia
Propose renaming Category:Marine fauna of Eastern Australia to Marine fish of Eastern Australia
Propose renaming Category:Marine fauna of Southern Australia to Marine fish of Southern Australia

Nominator's rationale:
- nearly every if not all entries within these 'fauna' cats are fish species (the very, very few exceptions could eventually be moved to a new "marine fauna of..." parent cat.)
- these numerous fish articles should be placed in daughter cats of "fish of Australia" (at present cannot be, due to 'fauna') --Couiros22 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create subcats Category:Marine fish of Australia etc and let the fish swim into them? There are Category:Cephalopods of Australia and Category:Pinnipeds of Australia which look to me as if they should be subcats of Category:Marine fauna of Australia. (The categories are not tagged.) See eg Category:Marine fauna of New Zealand. As an aside the parent categories are Category:Aquatic animals, Category:Marine animals, Category:Freshwater animals so perhaps 'animals' should be used instead of 'fauna'. Oculi (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: How would they swim into them though?

- if you rename categories, the entries will be be recategorized automatically

- but if you create new categories with different names, all the articles will have to be moved into them manually --Couiros22 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy using say Cat-a-lot (assuming they are all fish). Oculi (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...ok, but what is the disadvantage of simply renaming them, rather than creating new ones? --Couiros22 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Oculi's point about "fauna" vs "animals" - currently categories generally use "fauna" when referring to a specific area. It would simplify things if we switched to just use "animals; that works for fish, insects etc (where there isn't a separate word). DexDor^(talk) 15:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since not all of the marine fauna are fish, it would be inaccurate to rename the category to specify fish. Subcats seems like a better idea here, so we aren't calling invertebrate coral "fish". Hog Farm (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: read again carefully --Couiros22 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but there's probably an easier way to do that. (Misread the nomination the first time). Hog Farm (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see above --Couiros22 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment, the ñominated categories have not been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Couiros22 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns - there are many queries raised on the talkpage of Couiros22 about the creation of dubious categories. I don't have any problem myself with Category:Marine fish of Australia, subcat of Category:Fish of Australia, but the others ... there is no Category:Fish of Western Australia, Category:Fish of Northern Australia, Category:Fish of Eastern Australia, Category:Fish of Southern Australia. Indeed the list is Category:Western Australia, Category:Northern Australia, Category:Eastern Australia, Category:Southern Australia. Also many of the associated categories were created by NotWith/Look2see etc, which doesn't inspire confidence. I would merge all the above 5 into Category:Marine fish of Australia, as a marine fish in Southern Australia has no great problem in swimming to Northern Australia. Oculi (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: You need to address the fact that ranges of fish are clearly shown on websites e.g. fishbase (range description under map, not map itself) and IUCN map.

I see more of an advantage rather than a pb in refining into northern, southern, eastern and western sub-cats

as a side note, the freshwater fish of Australia were once also refined into their vivid geographic areas (eg. freshwater fish of western Australia etc.) and I think both freshwater and marine cats. were grouped into the four parent fish cats. you mentioned above --Couiros22 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, categories also need to fit into category trees. We have Category:Fish of Australia and Category:Freshwater fish of Australia, not subcatted into regions. Oculi (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It would seem to me that a more logical idea would be to make a new Category:Marine fish of Australia as a sub cat of Category:Marine fauna of Australia and migrate the fish into that. Other subcats would include those for pinepeds, cetaceans, sea birds, crustaceans, molluscs and other faunal groups. This proposal seems misdirected to me. If the cat currently only contains fish, then the appropriate solution surely is to add the sub cats that are missing rather than narrow the scope of this category. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Thorne: Given the current guidelines of fish categorization (as well as other types of biota) allow/recommend a +/- refined level of geographical categorization (eg. at country level), what exactly is the problem in refining the range of species into more clear-cut areas of presence (cf. fishbase or IUCN species' map/description), whether for freshwater or marine species? Is it due to the fact that :

- the idea itself seems overly precise and categorical

- or rather due to the ambiguity of species' ranges of presence (if so, see answer above)

- if not, for any another reason ? --Couiros22 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read my comment? My argument is not with the isea of geographical categorisation but with you wanting to change marine fauna into fish. The fact that there are missing sub-cats under this category and that most members of this category are fish is not an argument to completely change the focus of this cat. As I stated, move the fish articles into a sub cat Category:Marine fish of Australia, then have away at your geographical sub cats of that. Leave this cat alone and add any appropriate sub cats that are missing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did you read mine? I never intended the "marine fauna of Aus" cat to disappear --Couiros22 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were proposing to rename Category:Marine fauna of Australia to Marine fish of Australia, my bad. Oh, wait... - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

further up I wrote : "the very, very few exceptions could eventually be moved to a new "marine fauna of"... parent cat."

... clear now ? --Couiros22 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to - Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Categories? Note: that's technically not a WP:Guideline. DexDor^(talk) 17:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for two reasons - (1) creating subcats should be done properly (create subcats and then move appropriate articles down manually / hotcat / AWB / bot) rather than making a bad move and then tidying up miscategorized articles/categories, (2) I think we should avoid categorizing marine fauna by sub-continental land areas (e.g. see an article such as Bentfin devil ray). DexDor^(talk) 13:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Why would some articles be miscategorized ?

(2) the lone example has a prima facie pan-tropical distribution (but is also included under marine fauna of N Aust. for relevant purposes) --Couiros22 (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Articles such as Polycarpa aurata would be miscategorized. If the CFD nomination had included a list of such articles and/or details of how you would check for such articles immediately after a rename my objection for this reason would much less. The categories themselves (e.g. if the text refers to fauna) might also need changing.

(2) I don't understand what you mean by "for relevant purposes". Do you think an article like that (which happened to be the 1st one I looked at) should be categorized for every country etc it's found off the coast of? DexDor^(talk) 16:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I clearly said that these few exceptions could quickly be identified and redirected... which you seem to have ignored ; so why exactly would this pose a problem ?

(2) What is your opinion, apart from this example (the species was pan-tropical, yet also bearing a clear-cut presence in the second area) ? --Couiros22 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) No you did not; the word you used in the nom was "eventually" (not "quickly").

(2) "bearing a clear-cut presence in the second area" (i.e. Northern Australia)? Australia is just one of a long list of countries mentioned in the article and N Aust isn't specifically mentioned. Note: We categorize articles based on information in the articles; not on information in any other database etc and it isn't the purpose of wp categorization to duplicate those databases. DexDor^(talk) 18:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) How would the two or three non-fish exceptions pose a substantial problem ? The onus is on you to answer this simple question.

(2) Ranges listed in articles are extracted from references in the lower taxonbar (Fishbase and IUCN in particular, which both corroborate each other); so what is the problem in categorizing in the same manner ? --Couiros22 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There are at least 6.

(2) Per my previous reply. DexDor^(talk) 20:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) How is that insuperable ?

(2) The aim isn't to categorize according to every single country, but by fathomable areas of presence (cf.taxonbar refs) ; this is the principle e.g. of the WP floral categorical system etc. --Couiros22 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It isn't insuperable, but that you said 2-3 (i.e. without checking) doesn't inspire confidence.

(2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization doesn't say anything about "fathomable areas of presence". DexDor^(talk) 08:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) sorry where ? *no cherry-picking please*

(2) the scheme works +/- in the same way as mine here --Couiros22 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding you. DexDor^(talk) 15:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please pursue your inspection of the articles of those categories and give your opinion (based upon the taxonbar references : Fishbase & IUCN in particular), whether by and large (not just on an assumption drawn from one example) the species are categorized in a pragmatical way or not. --Couiros22 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, see the note in my comment of 18:32 on 1st. DexDor^(talk) 20:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create new subcats at the fish names, and keep the current categories. The equivalent Category:Marine fauna of New Zealand (and ...Oceania, and ...Asia, and ...Europe, and ...Africa, etc etc etc) shows how to organise this system sensibly. Currently Australia is the odd one out. Better to create new subcats rather than rename the old cats. We're only talking a couple of hundred articles to move in total - certainly not a long, tedious task (you should have tried sorting the Antarctica geography stubs - all 14,000 of them - into regions by hand! Now that was tedious!) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 2 February 2020 (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:English teachers[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) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English teachers to Category:Teachers of English

Nominator's rationale: Name is too ambiguous. Category is full of biographies of teachers whose nationality is English. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and purge of teachers of other subjects. Oculi (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question, shouldn't it be split? I guess we may also need a subcategory of English people by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:English schoolteachers. Oculi (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. So that should be the destination of the purged articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've purged it. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2020 (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.

Sport-related lists by 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 C There's clear consensus to standardise and this has the strongest support. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: Standardise on "sport"

78 categories

Option B: Use noun form of country name

26 categories

Option C: Standardise on "sport" AND use noun form of country name

78 categories

Option D: Standardise on "sports" AND use noun form of country name (added Added 02:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

123 categories

Nominator's rationale: this is a procedural nomination, as a follow-up to WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 19#Subcategories_under_Category:Sports-related_lists_by_country, a nomination by User:Iketsi which was closed for procedural reasons.

Iketsji sought to tackle two issues:

Inconsistent use of the noun and adjectival forms of country names; Iketski proposed to standardise on the noun-form
Inconsistent use of "sport" and "sports"; Iketski proposed to standardise on the singular form "sport"

I promised there to create a new multi-option CFD, so here it is. My suggestion before was that there were two options, but on review, I realised that there were actually 3 possibilities, which I have labelled above:

Option A: Standardise on "sport"
Option B: Use noun form of country name
Option C: Standardise on "sport" AND use noun form of country name

... so I have listed all three options.

Category:Sports-related lists by country has 175 by-country subcats, but only 78 of them would be altered by any combination of these proposals. Option B (use noun form of country name) would rename only 26 categories currently using the adjectival form.

Note that the "sport"/"sports" choice raises MOS:ENGVAR issues: British English prefers "sport", but American English prefers "sports". The variation is reflected in other category names, e.g. the naming of the subcats of Category:Sport in North America by country.

These ENGVAR issues have a parallel from 2019 April, when I proposed to standardise the "organisation"/"organization" variation in category names on "organization", but the RFC became very heated: see WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC:_spelling_of_"organisation"/"organization"_in_descriptive_category_names, and the related procedural debate at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Close_review_-_Village_Pump_discussion_on_spelling_of_category_names. The whole saga lasted just over 5 months without ever reaching a consensus.

If this discussion does produce a consensus to standardise on "sport", then a further step may be to align these categories with the "sport"/"sports" varinat used by their parent category. For example Category:Welsh sports-related lists is a subcat of Category:Sport in Wales. Speedy nominations per WP:C2C could resolve that difference.

Since this is a procedural nomination, I will express no preference here, but I may do so in discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- PS Since it is has been supported by Oculi below, I have added: Option D: Standardise on "sports" AND use noun form of country name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly standardize, all three options are better than keeping as is. I am not indicating a specific preference for any of the three options as I'd rather stay out of WP:ENGVAR discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the participants at the previous CFD: @Iketsi, Oculi, Carlossuarez46, Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, and MER-C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for option C, but I am a standardizer. However all the options are an improvement.Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for Option D: Standardise on "sports" AND use noun form of country name. Option D was suggested at the previous cfd by BHG, and follows Category:Sports-related lists, Category:Sports (Category:Sport is a redirect). We already have Category:British sports-related lists, Category:English sports-related lists, Category:Welsh sports-related lists, Category:Scottish sports-related lists, Category:Australian sports-related lists, Category:New Zealand sports-related lists, so the usual advocates of UK_Eng appear to be indifferent to 'sports' (unlike 'ize'). This said, second choice would be Option C, then Option B. Oculi (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oculi: my phrasing in that comment[1] was an inadequate expression of my views. If we're going to standardise on either, then yes, the plural form sports involves fewer changes ... but I think that this is an ENGVAR issue where standardisation is inappropriate.

However, since Option D is now on the table, I will add to the list of options above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that US-Eng would object to Category:United States sport-related lists (as it is Category:Sports in the United States). To my UK ear, 'Sports in England' is wrong, but sports-related is fine. Cf Sports day, Leeds University Sports Pavillion, Dunblane Sports Club. And kudos for adding Option D with your usual thoroughly adequate attention to detail.(Category:Lists of sports clubs by country uses 'sports' throughout, as does Category:Sports organizations by country.) Oculi (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly option C or D. I want to maximize style uniformity across categories, but I have no strong preference in the "sport" vs "sports" debate. Like Oculi said above, I don't think it's an WP:ENGVAR issue. Iketsi (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Standardise on sport, use the adjectival form. Could live with option B. ~~But most importantly, lose the "-related". Nothing wrong with Category:American sport lists and the like, and the "-related" is gradually being dropped from all the list types, IIRC.~~ Grutness...wha? 03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Edited 10:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A keeps the present mix of nouns and adjectives. If we are also to include dropping or keeping '-related' there will be more options than editors at cfd. (I have not noticed any other objections to '-related'; Category:Lists by country suggests otherwise and supports the noun form.) Oculi (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oculi is right that Option A does not do what Grutness thinks it does. Also, the "-related" format add yet another permutation to already complex discussion, so I hope that Grutness would be kind enough to withdraw that proposal to allow us to at least reach a decision on the other options, rather than drowning in permutations. There are more than 4,000 categories of "Foo-related lists", and any decision on that format should be taken in a centralised discussion of all of them, rather than piecemeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd got it confused with a similar discussion on stub categories, which removed all the "-related"s as unnecessary and cumbersome. I would, however, still like to see the adjectival form used in all categories. Normally with sport, the noun form seems to be used for national teams and the adjectival form for sport within countries. Using the noun form will muddy that issue considerably. Grutness...wha? 10:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option C. Seems like a resonable option to me. - Darwinek (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think it's an WP:ENGVAR issue as neither "sports-... in the UK" nor "sport-... in the US" is correct. While standardization is preferable when a common noun can be found for both sides of the divide (tv series rather than program(me)s). Here, I think my vocabulary fails me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the UK one has been Category:British sports-related lists since 2011 and no-one has protested ('sports-related' is fine in the UK, where I have been since 1947; 'Sports in the UK' is not OK). If we are going to use ENGVAR we should follow sport/sports as in Category:Sport in Asia by country etc where it is 'sport' nearly everywhere except for the US and closely related countries (Option N or so). However I don't know why we should depart from 'sports' when it is Category:Sports-related lists (all subcats of which use 'sports'), Category:Sports-related lists by country, 'sport-related' is wrong in the US, ... The BBC site has similar hits for either variant: "sports-related" gets 165; "sport-related" gets 149. Oculi (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sports-related ... in the UK" is proper British English, then we ought standardize on "Sports" because sport-related lists in the US isn't proper American English where I live. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option B. Use the noun form of the country name, per most other country/topic list categories. I think that there is probably an ENGVAR issue with the sport/sport issue, so I'd prefer to leave that to a separate discussion. But if there isn't consensus for option A, then I could live with C or D as alternatives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Option B with an immediate relist (modified) for the sport/sports option. The noun version could be done via 26 speedies using the 100% convention in Category:Lists by country. Oculi (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise on country name It is much clearer to use the country name rather than demonym – for example, one could easily construe "American sports-related lists" as lists relating to Sports originating in the United States. I think bringing English spelling variations into this proposal is needless and will complicate the conversation for practically no benefit to most people here, or readers for that matter. I suggest we maintain the existing categories' choice of "sport" or "sports" to focus on the main issue, which is standardising the overall form to remove ambiguity rather than eliminating perfectly acceptable variations of English. SFB 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option C is the best choice. Certainly, standardize to country name. According to Cambridge Dictionary (UK), "sports" is an adjective followed by a noun and "sport" in the noun. According to Macmillan (US), "sports" is just plural noun of "sport". We have Category:Technology-related lists, not "technologies-related" or "technological-related". Renata (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2020 (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:American buskers[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 as WP:ENGVAR. A redirect will be kept. – Fayenatic London 12:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American buskers to Category:American street performers

Nominator's rationale: Busker is not really a word in American English. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose It's part of Category:Buskers by nationality and general Category:Buskers, but the main article is at Street performance. Either all categories or the main article should be renamed accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since WP:ENGVAR allows the use of local terminology. Potentially the whole tree may be renamed, but that would be a different nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prune for many folks who made it big, their street performance/busker days are not notable any more than their jobs waiting tables or washing cars. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2020 (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.