Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3[edit]

Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by fascist regimes[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category has many of the problems of the recently deleted "Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by communist regimes", for one, there are many differences between the fascist regimes included here, from Nazi Germany, to Fascist Italy, to the Independent State of Croatia, and Imperial Japan. Another problem is that the nature of those persecutions is inconsistent, while there are examples where persecution was ethnic based, in others this is either unclear or tangetial, one example of this is the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, while Fascist Italy behaved very brutally in that war, ethnic motivation is rather unclear here, it seems more like a war of conquest no different than other European colonial powers fought in the past, similarly, another example is Italian war crimes, this article not only includes atrocities committed before the Fascists even took power, but also includes crimes which were not ethnically motivated, such as those in the Spanish Civil War. Lastly, in many cases (though not all), the link between the fascist nature of the regime and ethnic nature of persecution is no more than a trivial intersection. Based on the same rationale used to delete "Category:Persecution of ethnic groups by communist regimes", it would be appropriate to delete this category as well. -- 186.213.34.245 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 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:Country data templates of other entities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Country data templates of other entities

Category:Hebrew punctuation[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. bibliomaniac15 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a single page, for which a dedicated category is not necessary, and I am not aware of other Hebrew punctuation templates. If kept, this should be renamed to avoid giving the impression that this is an article category about the topic of Hebrew punctuation. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd notice) -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:21, 3 May 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:Sport redirects[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) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as unused unless someone would like to fill this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not necessary or helpful to categorize redirects by topic area, as they are not content. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:03, 3 May 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:Health by city[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. bibliomaniac15 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope of these two categories is the same. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have Category:Health care, subcat of Category:Health. Different scopes. Oculi (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The health category also includes health disasters, which have little to do with healthcare. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither are terribly useful. Health care by city is largely full of hospitals and medical schools. Not many cities are big enough to merit such a category. Health by city is partly populated by stuff which belongs in healthcare, and partly by stuff about epidemics, sewers etc, but even the biggest cities dont generate enough articles about health to populate a category. So on balance I would support a merger, but some of the subcategories need purging and many of them would need renaming in line. The articles about health, as opposed to healthcare, in a city would probably be better in the Health in Foo country category, and maybe in the history of the city, if there is such a category. I doubt if many articles like COVID-19 pandemic in City X will really be worth keeping in the long run. Viruses dont respect municipal boundaries. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Health by city and health care by city are different scope, but I'm not sold on the current name. Health by city has, say for London, organizations that are otherwise nationwide (perhaps worldwide) headquartered there without any indication that those organizations do anything more for the health of Londoners than of Mancunians. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the subcategories were purged of inappropriate articles I doubt if either Category:Health by city or Category:Health care by city would really be viable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, first the subcategories have to be merged or renamed before it is useful to merge this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There may be subtle differences between Health and Health care but most editors (including me) don't seem to understand it. Category:Hospitals in London is categorised Category:Health in London but Category:Hospitals in Sydney is categorised Category:Healthcare in Sydney. What's the difference?--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:02, 10 May 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:Independent Ireland MEPs[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. bibliomaniac15 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammar. The adjective "independent" is used her to describe the non-party status of the MEPs, but the current title places the adjective in the wrong place, making it appear that this category is for MEPs from "Independent Ireland" ... which is a different set of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron, there are multiple constituencies, but per WP:PRECISION I don't think that the extra verbosity adds any benefit to readers, since the shorter form creates no ambiguity. THE European Parliament itself doesn't use such language. See e.g.
  1. List of MEPs for Ireland: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?name=&groupCode=&countryCode=IE&constituency=&bodyType=ALL
  2. One of my MEPs: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28115/MAIREAD_MCGUINNESS/home
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 6 May 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:The Max Weinberg 7 members[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. bibliomaniac15 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy
@Armbrust, a copy of the oppose at speedy would help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:  Done Armbrust The Homunculus 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I basically said that these are two different bands. Max Weinberg a member (and leader) of the The Max Weinberg 7 was never a member of Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band. We've had similar discussions recently after the Disney-Fox merger were categories changed to match the new name of the company/subsidiary, but then were reverted back and split into the old and new categories as it's just not correct to use current names for past things. --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO it doesn't really matter. Either they are the same band or they are not (but if they are not then there should be two articles and The Max Weinberg 7 shouldn't redirect to Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From the head article, it seems to be a band which evolved over time, going went through several changes of name and lineup. It's hard to know how to categorise bands like that. If we choose any one category name, there are obvious inconsistencies; but if we split the categories, we get the clutter of WP:OVERLAPCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OVERLAPCAT is a really good point. The only member that wasn't a member of "Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band" is Max Weinberg, the other 7 members are the same. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really an overlap as they are two different bands (different band leader, different talk show, different city, different network). Should we merge the categories for Audioslave and Rage Against the Machine? Seeing how 3 out of the 4 Rage members continued and formed this band? --Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym: If they are separate bands, then why is there only one article and why does the other title redirect to that article (which to me implies they are the same). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it has to do with notability guidelines, or just not enough information for separate pages, or people not liking stubs, or a question on how you define a "new" band, or some or all of the above. As somewhat related, TV programs that get revivals years later usually do not receive a new article on en.wiki and just get lumped into the same page. Are they the same program? Double Dare (franchise) which until last year was not disambiguated with "franchise" is home for a series which ran from 1986-1993, another from 2000 and a third from 2018-2019. Can you really call a show that has 15 years apart the same show? I can't. The fact that they share the same page is just because reality TV series have a working consensus to do that (compare that to Dallas (2012 TV series)). I'll also point that in the current setup, Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band is placed in Category:Late Night with Conan O'Brien and Category:The Tonight Show Band members, which it never was, but not placed in Category:Conan (talk show) which it should. --Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 10 May 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:Nurses from London[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. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of Category:English nurses. However not all nurses from London are English. Does this require a rename, or re-catrgoisation, or renaming the parent? Applies to sister categories, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a special issue for nurses. As far as I can see the way categorisation is used is that location is nothing to do with nationality or identity. "From" is ambiguous. It might mean they originated there, or that they practised there. But the issues that arise with nurses are not really different from other professions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People from London arent all English either. And English has not been a nationality since 1707. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. My nationality has always been English, and I have many friends whose nationality is Welsh or Scottish or Irish. You seem to have confused the concept of a "nation" with that of a "citizen". --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." England is not a state. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nationality is "the status of belonging to a particular nation". A nation is "is a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". England is a nation; Wales is a nation; Scotland is a nation; Ireland is a nation. A state (polity) is a very ill-defined entity, and it makes no sense to claim that "England is not a state" unless you qualify what you mean by "state". --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that the notion of "state" is not straightforward, but I am taking the definition from the Wikipedia article. I dont think that we can identify an English state since 1707, even though we might call Scotland and even Wales a state now. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Even the Wikipedia article opens with "There is no undisputed definition of a state." One could argue that the EVEL legislation is a rather clear manifestation of an English state. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • RexxS is right: terms like "country" and "nation" and "nationality" and "state" are fuzzy. The UK is a "country of countries".
                It would have been very helpful if Rathfelder had taken a few seconds to read the lead of Country before cluttering up CFD with misplaced pedantry based on yet another of their misunderstandings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people can be "from" someplace that isn't their nationality. It could be an ex pat situation, a refugee, an immigrant, a temporary assignment, whatever. From London isn't strictly a subset of "English" anything, but we have that problem all over Wikipedia where people "from XXX, Foo" are subcategories of Fooish people (although not used here: nurses from London < people from London < English people by city, etc. is a normal progression; not sure why Nurses from London isn't in "people from London" but I digress). We could fix this two ways in my view (perhaps there are others I haven't thought of, though): 1) have wholly separate category trees for the "people from" (and professions from) and "Fooish people" (based on citizenship) and dump lots of biographies in several largely overlapping people - probably most people from some not so cosmopolitan place as London, say Des Moines, Iowa will be "American people" - or 2) accept the imprecise overlap that comes with what we do now leading to oddities like John McCain, a featured article, being in categories that roll up to Panamanian people because he was born on a US base in the Canal Zone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorisation of people by time and place is not an exact science. We cant categorise people by nationality with any precision because nationality law is very complex and varies between countries and over time. Very few articles say anything explicit about nationality. I generally dont put people into categories of "People from" somewhere they happened to be born but left when they were a small child, unless it has some significance - as I guess it does for American Presidential candidates. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Nurses from London" is a categorisation by location, then surely its parent should be "Nurses from England"? --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. But we only have Category:English people by occupation. English is ambiguous. Before 1707 it was a nationality, and of course some people still think it is. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'English' (nationality, citizenship, birthplace, residence, language) is indeed far more ambiguous than 'from England', which is why we use the formula "<group> from <location>" as the category under debate does. Why do we leave its parent categories ambiguous when we know how to formulate a much less ambiguous category name when categorising by location? --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we want to explore these issues I dont think this is the right place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we don't want to explore these issues here, then we ought not to be debating the original question, Does this require a rename, or re-catrgoisation, or renaming the parent? (my emphasis). --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People from is a well established category genre in WP. A person can be from several places. It is purposely vague. Legally, English is not a nationality. The citizenship is of UK, colloquially "British". The answer to the nom's objection may be to provide the parent English nurses with a head note explaining that the scope of the term "English". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Rathfelder that this is not the right venue for a discussion like this. This discussion should be closed by lack of a clear rename or merge proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The structure of "Fooers from ThisTown" as a subcat of "NationalityName fooers" is common to tens of thousands of categories of en.wp categories. No reason is offered for singling out this one.
The only way to resolve this is to rename all the people-by-nationality categories to "people from CountryName" e.g.
That would be huge exercise, and it would also mean a slight change of scope, due to the quirks of nationality and citizenship laws. A child born in Zimbabwe and raised there by two German parents is legally German, but is not from Germany. A child born in Germany to two Zimbabwean parents is from Germany, but may not be legally German. And so on.
Commons uses "people of Foo" (e.g. Commons:Category:People of Ireland and Commons:Category:Politicians of Argentina), which is slightly fuzzier than "from".
I think that a change to the "people of" format would in principle be an improvement, but also that in practice it's not helpful, because implementing it would be an absolutely massive undertaking. It would involve renaming hundreds of thousands of categories, redesigning thousands of templates, and manually editing tens of thousands of pages to reflect the changes to those templates. I don't think that such a mammoth task would be a wise use of so much editors' time and energy, esp since every possible formulation brings its own fuzziness and aonmalies.
However, if anyone does want to pursue this issue, then it should be done by a heavily-advertised RFC ... and not by singling out one category at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we think there is a problem it's actually with the country categories, which claim to be based on nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, @Rathfelder; the country categories are fine. The naming of e.g. Category:Thailand and Category:Bolivia presents no problem.
The issue under discussion is that the people-by-nationality categories use a naming format which has a slightly different scope to the purely geographical basis of the categories for people-by-sub-national area. The gap is trivial in many cases, but more significant where the topic involves high levels of migration.
I meant the people-by-nationality categories. Most of them contain plenty of people who probably weren't citizens of the country. And for many countries they contain sub-categories relating to places which were not always in the country. But I think I agree that we have to live with these anomalies. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that much of the commentary here has over-sweated this issue. Per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of en.wp categories is for navigation. The categories have never set out to be a perfect Linnean classification system, and there are many many way in which they fail to meet that standard. I don't see any way in which resolving this minor anomaly would assist navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I agree with your comments that fixing this could be both a nightmare and a fool's errand - however, I do think this should be discussed given the WP:BLP issues. Perhaps even including a statement on the categories pages defining what "Fooish people" is understood to mean. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: A centralized would be preferable to ad hoc ones as each category comes up and the resolution will depend on who shows up that for 10 days' of discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez46: this is not a regular occurrence. There have been previous objections to the demonyms, but I don't recall any previous instance of the anomaly being raised at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bhg, & the appalling vista of actually doing anything about this minor anomaly. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 4 May 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:Raja Rao Award[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Category:Raja Rao Award

Category:Grand Prix du Roman winners[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: nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac15 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Prix de Rome was a long running French scholarship to send students to Rome to study the arts. Since the program ran from 1663 to 1968, the exact form evolved from stipends to apprentice with great artists to more formal college tuition payments. While the articles tend to mention the award in the early life sections, the people in this category are notable for what they did later in life so it doesn't seem defining. The winners (many of them redlinks) are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
You know what, I think you're right and I described the wrong award and went through the winners of that award. (It was in good faith however because this category name doesn't match a main article name, have a header, or a main article.) Nonetheless, my observation about the articles still holds true: it is mentioned in passing in the body of the articles and doesn't seem defining. (Certainly rename to Category:Grand Prix du roman de l'Académie française winners if kept.) Tagging prior iVotes to ensure consensus: @Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl: RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The correction of head article doesn't alter my assessment that the award is non-defining. I checked the new title on a sample of articles (as I did with the first title), and it's mostly mentioned low down the page. I see no sign of it being defining in the way that a Booker or Nobel would be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction! I had no doubt it was in good faith. I agree that the main article should be linked or placed in the category, and that "Académie française" should be in the name of the category. Place Clichy (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - screwed-up nom, which should be withdrawn (or at the very least completely rewritten). Defining. The French like their literary awards. Rd, can you explain what, out of all the winner sub-cats of Category:French literary awards, makes this one worthy of deletion? PS: I would have opposed even more strongly a deletion relating to the "actual" Prix de Rome. If you get confused between "Rome" and "roman", I'd approach French topics with caution frankly. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, do you favor renaming the category to match the main article? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to that. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete, despite the confusion. For example Vassilis Alexakis: obviously "Greek", "French", "writer" and "translator" are defining characteristics, but "prize winner" is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't agree to that. Alexakis's vehicle to stardom was definitely his winning the Prix Médicis in 1995, and that would definitely be defining for him. Not all of the hundreds of French literary prizes are defining, but the Goncourt, Renaudot, Médicis, Femina and Grand-Prix du Roman de l'Académie française definitely are, and probably the Inter-Allié, France Inter and a few others. Place Clichy (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn for Now Added the correct article to the category as a main article and created a separate speedy rename per WP:C2D. Let's get on the same page about which award we're talking about and then we can take this to a follow up nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - please ping participants when this happens. Given you are at 2:2 after a week, you might not want to bother. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 10 May 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:Women Brewers[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. Definite consensus to rename, but the ultimate fate of the category may be a topic for another discussion. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fuddle (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to CSD G6. Fuddle (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: You are correct: Thanks for correcting my "correction"! RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent categories per User:Peterkingiron and WP:OCEGRS, as an unrelated intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that women brewers is itself an independent topic per WP:OCEGRS? Unless there is some, I inclined to support merging this into the subcategories--User:Namiba 19:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable gender intersection. I've seen many times a female character on the label of a bottle o'beer but I don't remember arguments according to which beer would taste any different when brewed by women. (Rename if kept) Place Clichy (talk) 09:05, 10 May 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:Association football central defenders[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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. The use of "central defender" yields over 1 million results on Google, while "centre-back" almost 12 million. The use of "centre-back" is ubiquitous among the football community, "central defender" seems to be more of an American preference. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a link to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - When we list a player's position in their infobox, we use the term "centre-back" rather than "central defender". Unlike other sports, football's positions are not officially codified, but this is a more consistent way to refer to players of that position, especially when we have "full-back", "left-back" and "right-back" as similar roles. – PeeJay 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I had a look at the first 4 unique, English language sources that mention CF or CD at our Defender article. The Guardian used both but mentioned CD first, and BBC, forzaitalianfootball and England Football Online used Central Defender. It would have been helpful if the nominator had sought to provide external evidence for the proposed move. Eldumpo (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eldumpo: As I stated above, centre-back yields 12 million results, while central defender 1.5 million. This discussion isn't even close. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nehme1499: See Wikipedia:Search engine test. Those numbers which you posted useless: there are so many flaws in your searches that I don't know where to start, so I will randomly mention three issues: 1/ doing a general web search which pulls in all sorts of unreliable sources, rather than searching reliable sources; 2/ using the initial headline hit count, rather than following through to the end of the hits, when the finally tally is usually way lower; 3/ no attempt to restrict the hits to soccer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: if it's of any help Ngram Viewer shows a huge advantage to "centre back" over "central defeneder" (I couldn't hyphenate centre back as it would read it as a minus sign). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nehme1499: ngrams are next to useless for an issue like this. They give no indicction of whether the usages being counted have any relation to soccer. So far as I am aware, there is no way of remedying that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until and unless there's a better rationale. What do searches in literate English-language reliable sources, excluding forums, random websites, tabloids etc? I'm not arguing that central defender is more widely used (personally, I don't think it is) but my personal feeling is neither here nor there. As for the hyphenation of centre back, I'll repeat myself again: I tend to use centre back unhyphenated for the noun and hyphenate it when used adjectivally, but that's not a rationale for that being correct. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until and unless there's a better rationale. So far, all we have is assertions and a multiply-dodgy Google search ... and we shouldn't be recategorising 2,645 articles on such a shaky basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Struway2 and BHG. There is no such consensus as the OP has cited, and indeed this category has recently been retained at its current location per a recent CFD. Nominating so quickly again is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per opposers. The category only had its cfd tag removed moments ago and now the same nominator is bringing it back to cfd without even bothering to re-tag. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: I did re-tag it, but the bot removed it for some reason. Maybe you should look at the page history before accusing me... Nehme1499 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as blatant WP:FORUMSHOPing. Until Oculi's post above, I hadn't realised that there had been a previous CFD so recently, and now that I have checked the details, I am angry. The sequence is:
  1. [1] 15:23, 20 April 2020: Nehme1499 creates the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions was opened by
  2. [2] 00:57, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 closes that discussion as "keep".
  3. [3] 00:58, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 list the categories at WP:CFDW#Retain, so that the bot will untag the categories.
  4. [4]: 01:17, 3 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot III untags Category:Association football central defenders
  5. [5] 01:37, 3 May 2020‎ Nehme1499 retags the category for a new CFD
  6. [6] 01:39, 3 May 2020 Nehme1499 creates this new discussion.
In other words, Nehme1499 waited only 20 minutes after the closure of their failed nomination before trying again. (That's why the bot removed the new tag; Nehme1499 cted so fast that the entry hadn't even been removed from WP:CFDW#Retain).
In that new nomination, Nehme1499 didn't even mention the fact that there had been a previous nomination by them of exactly the same proposal had just been closed, let alone link to it ... never mind explain why they brought the same proposal back to CFD after only 20 minutes.
Nehme1499 did this with all three of the categories which they had previously nominated unsuccessfully. None of them mentioned the previous CFD, but all of them mentioned un-notified, poorly-attended discussions on a WikiProject talk page, with links obscured so that many editors missed them. And then Nehme1499 let the discussion for 24 hours without mentioning the previous discussion.
I don't recall ever seeing such blatant forum-shopping in my 14 years at CFD. I wanted to AGF that it was an error made through lack of competence, but Nehme1499's enthusiasm for link to the WikiProject discussions makes AGF unsustainable: Nehme1499 knew well the significance of linking to prev discussions when they thought those links might help their case, but omitted the links which would have exposed their attempt to WP:GAME the system. the ruse was spotted only 18 hours later[7] by GiantSnowman
This is outrageous, so I will now take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 4 May 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:Association football fullbacks[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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Struway2 and BHG. There is no such consensus as the OP has cited, and indeed this category has recently been retained at its current location per a recent CFD. Nominating so quickly again is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per opposers. Discussion should be closed as premature. Oculi (talk) 21:11, 3 May 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:Association football wing halves[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: procedural close. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions was just closed against this proposal. It is inappropriate to raise the same propsal less than an hour of that close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus at WikiProject Football (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). The rationale for using hyphenation can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide some rationale for the reason behind this move, there is no further detail at WP:Football. What are the reliable sources saying on this? My point applies to the two above listings as well. Eldumpo (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No explanation of the rationale, no link to any discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: the text "WikiProject Football" linked to the discussion. The discussion for "full-back" over "fullback" (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?) can also be applied for "wing-half" over "wing half". Nehme1499 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nehme1499: basic good linking practice is to not require the reader to follow a link to find out what it contains, or to guess that a link labelled "WikiProject Football" is actually a link to a specific discussion on the project's talkpage. The explicit link to the discussion is much clearer.
        Now that the discussion is clearly linked, I can see that it doesn't even mention wing-halves. So my oppose stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: The discussion that mentions wing-halves is the one linked at the top of this discussion. The one I have linked in response to your comment is another discussion for full-backs vs fullbacks (which encourages the use of the hyphen). In brief: the first discussion shows consensus for "wing-halves" over "wing halves", while the second shows consensus for hyphenation. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nehme1499: it would help a lot of you had opened the nomination by linking directly to both discussions and noting their relevance. It shouldn't take until well down into indents before that gets clarified.
            And WT:WikiProject Football#Player_positions_categories is not at all enlightening. It's just three editors over 24 hours saying "me too", without any reasoning or evidence from anyone. Since there's nothing other than WP:ILIKEITs, my oppose stands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @BrownHairedGirl: it shows consensus among the football community of Wikipedia, who are well-versed in football terminology, to add hyphenation to the position names. The rationale for using the hyphenation can be found at the second discussion, regarding "full-backs". Also, while you might oppose this particular change, do you also oppose "full-backs" instead of "fullbacks", even with a relevant discussion linked? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Grammatically, it makes more sense to say "wing-half" than "wing half". – PeeJay 16:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until and unless there's a better rationale for the hyphenation than 'because I say so'. Personally, I tend to use wing half unhyphenated for the noun and hyphenate it when used adjectivally, but that's not a rationale for keeping any more than others using it hyphenated in all cases is a reason for change. What do the major English-language dictionaries say? or searches in literate English-language reliable sources, excluding forums, random websites, tabloids etc? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Struway2 and BHG. There is no such consensus as the OP has cited, and indeed this category has recently been retained at its current location per a recent CFD. Nominating so quickly again is POINTy and disruptive. GiantSnowman 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per opposers. Discussion should be closed as premature. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 3 May 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:Universities and colleges in Belthangady taluka[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. bibliomaniac15 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Universities and colleges in Belthangady already exists. "Taluka" is not mentioned in any of the articles in the category. Fuddle (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belthangady apparently has a population of 7,635 and both members of the category are already in Category:Schools in Dakshina Kannada district. TSventon (talk) 11:20, 3 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_3&oldid=956956268"