Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9[edit]

Category:AFC U-16 Championship qualification[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. ✗plicit 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More than one qualification Gjs238 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:43, 10 October 2021 (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:A.C. Pisa 1909[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. ✗plicit 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changed its name to Pisa S.C. in August 2021. I think it makes sense to rename the categories so they fit the name of the club (just like the page has been moved to its new name). Bocanegra (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, no problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per CFDS C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 13:46, 10 October 2021 (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:European Court of Human Rights case law by involved 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: keep. ✗plicit 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The language "involving" is too vague here. It is possible for a state to be involved in a case in a number of ways. Most of the cases in these categories mean that the case was filed against the state in question, or "respondent state" is the most commonly used term in reliable sources. But it's also possible for a state to file a case against another state, e.g. Greek case or Cyprus v. Turkey. In addition, a state can intervene as a third party in a case, which would not be defining for the case (imo). Furthermore, the word "country" introduces needless confusion when all cases are filed against sovereign states. Scotland is a country, but if the Scottish Government violates your human rights, you have to file a case against the UK. (t · c) buidhe 09:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, are all articles in these categories a case of "against"? If that is not the case the nomination will also require purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think the current names need amendment as exceptions will be inevitable if we use "against". For example, have there been any international cases (country v country)? As regards Scotland and Wales, they are part of the UK and the UK as a whole has ultimate responsibility for the actions of the devolved governments. I don't see a problem with Category:European Court of Human Rights case law by involved country but perhaps it could be changed to Category:European Court of Human Rights case law by sovereign state to be strictly correct? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    exceptions will be inevitable if we use "against" I'm not sure what you mean here? The point is to have an unambiguous scope, classifying the cases by the state(s) they were filed against. The current category names don't make it clear what cases the state is "involved" in, which can mean a lot of different things as mentioned above. have there been any international cases (country v country)? Yes, there have been, I mentioned them in the nomination. I don't agree with Category:European Court of Human Rights case law by sovereign state because it is as vague as "involved" which cases are classified by which state.
    Re Marcocapelle, The categories are in serious need of purging due to containing articles that are not ECHR cases. There may be a few that are misclassified based on not being against the state in question, but not very many. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question has probably become moot while the nomination is opposed. Hoever articles that are not ECHR cases should be purged irrespective of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've just tagged all the categories, so I am relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator's rationale clearly identifies the problem with this CfD: currently, Cyprus v. Turkey is correctly in the Cyprus and Turkey categories. On what basis is that "too vague"? It serves a curious reader for it to be so categorised, unless a reason can be identified why a reader should not find out that Cyprus was involved in Cyprus v. Turkey. They'll know from the case title itself that they weren't the respondent state. Absent such a reason, it seems a perfectly reasonable categorisation. The non-ECHR cases should obviously be removed regardless of the outcome of the CfD nomination. (On the matter of 'country' vs. 'state' for the parent category, I am completely indifferent.) —Tom Morris (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the former writer observed, and as implicitly noted already in the nomination, not all the articles now correctly belonging to the 'involved' categories should be kept in the proposed 'against' categories. @Buidhe: What is it that you do not understand about the exceptions, such as the aforementioned Cyprus v Turkey now listed (also) in Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving Cyprus‎?
    As far as I can see, there are three ways to handle this problem, in case the 'against' categories are created: 1: The problem may be ignored, leaving the exceptions in categories with wildly inappropriate names; 2: The exeptional articles are removed from the categories, decreasing the use of the categories as search instruments; and 3: The 'against' categories are created, but placed as subcategories of the 'involving' categories, which are retained. In the third alternative, the article Cyprus v Turkey would be moved from 'cases involving Turkey' to 'cases against Turkey', but be retained directly in the 'cases involving Cyprus' category. This alternative certainly is possible, and does not imply introducing grave misnomers or loss of categorisation; but this is not Buidhe's suggestion, and it does seem to introduce a number of categories with no or very few immediate members.
    @Buidhe: I'm sure you would not accept a move of all members in Category:General elections to the Scottish Parliament to a new-named category Category:General elections to the Scottish Parliament won by the Scottish Nationalist Party, with the argument that this title is more precise, and true for a majority of these elections (in the sense that in four of the six elections the SNP became or remained the largest party in the Parliament, and its leader became/remained prime minister)? IMHO, a more precise category title, which is a clear misnomer for some of its members, is far worse than a more general but correct title. JoergenB (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (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:Diseases characterized by inflammation[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. ✗plicit 00:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, if populated this would create a category of widely varying diseases that have nothing in common with each other but a very frequently occurring symptom. If the category is kept, creator (and maybe other editors) should take the effort populating the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The scope of the category is enormous in medical terms. The lone article (a list) is adequately categorised elsewhere. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too common, and too diverse in terms of cause, location, and severity, to be a defining trait; the sole member is a list article that is already in Category:Inflammations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 11 October 2021 (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/2021_October_9&oldid=1051686479"