Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14[edit]

Category:Meredith Brooks and Category:Stefy[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent of similar musician categories. With only songs and albums to categorize and interlinks between the two subcats, these eponymous parent cats are too general and simply not necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are essentially empty categories which serve as parents to viable subcategories. I do not see scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OCEPON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (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:Missing songwriters[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The songswriters aren't missing (so not a subcategory of Category:Missing people) just that there is no information about who the songwriters are in the articles for these songs. As a maintenance category, I would think this could be populated automatically if something was set up to add this category to articles in which the "writer" field in Song and Single infoboxes aren't filled. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as creator of the category, I apologise for the lack of thought in the naming of the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:. I note that the term "Missing songwriters" is still in the proposed title. Wouldn't "Song articles without songwriter names" or similar be more appropriate? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm open to suggestions on a more appropriate name. What about "Song articles with writers missing", "Song articles missing songwriter information", or if it can be automated, "Song articles with no writers in infobox"?
      • I prefer the last two options, but happy to go with consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2E, author request, per above. We're within the 28 day time limit.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to better clarify what it is its scope. Should this also include songs where the songwriter is effectively unknown? Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response. As per text in category, there is a category Category:Songwriter unknown where the songwriter is likely to remain unknown. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (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:Non-governmental organizations by subject[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/rename as specified. MER-C 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: "NGO" is a term coined in 1945 by the intergovernmental U.N., at a period of time and in a particular context where non-governmental organizations played a much lesser role than they do today.
Today, the huge majority of organizations aren't government agencies, the latter being the rare exception in modern pluralist societies. In fact, the very term organization (or organisation for those who prefer that spelling variant) has become rather synonymous with private, non-governmental activities. At the same time, the definition of an NGO remained very vague, including advocacy groups backed by profitable companies or states. In fact, many organizations considered NGOs rely on government money, in some (though certainly not most) cases making them the mouthpieces of governments' interests.
This is not about discussing the merits or blunders of NGOs. I'm only saying that if even Category:Private spaceflight companies are considered Category:Space non-governmental organizations, they don't really have anything in common with, say, Category:Islamic Relief organizations or Category:Poverty and hunger non-governmental organizations, except that by legal status both are no government agencies. This distinction might have had its merits in the early days of Wikipedia, but today tens of thousands of articles would have to be bulked together as Non-governmental organizations of one or the other kind. They aren't, as we have instead focussed on categorizing by subject, activity, membership or legal status of organizations, see Category:Organizations, a scheme that clearly works better. And reflecting society, Category:Government with all its agencies and institutions now is just a subcategory, a specific type of organization.
For years, I thought about getting this problem tackled, but found no way to do so, and in the meantime nothing really happened, except for the NGO tree getting more and more arbitrary and basically broken beyond repair. It's time we do away with the remainders of our effectively broken NGO categorization scheme, even if the term continues to be used in some countries, or for some organizations, and though it may continue to be used in the respective articles. --PanchoS (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well thought out, reasonable proposal that removes unnecessary duplication. AusLondonder (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I would also support the use of 'z' consistently from Category:Organizations downwards until we reach country-specific categories. Oculi (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose that per WP:RETAIN AusLondonder (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The distinction between governmental and non-governmental does not to be defining. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unclear inclusion criteria on the one hand (too many "NGOs" have strong governmental ties), and redundantly obvious when it comes to the most typical meaning. We have no reason to over-disambiguate/over-subcat in the second case, nor one to permit a confusing commingling of unlike entities in the first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the current names are needlessly long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2016 (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:Politicians convicted of sex offences[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I want this category to be considered for deletion. There are no occupational categories in Category:People convicted of sex crimes and I don't know if this is a category tree that Wikipedia should build up and extend. What's next, Actors convicted of sex crimes and Accountants convicted of sex crimes? Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections of a Merge of Category:Politicians convicted of sex offences to Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: That isn't true as many of the politicians came into contact with their victims through their office. For example, Milton Orkopoulos AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, for many of those included in the category, such as Shawn Christian (mayor), Steve Christian and Mike Warren (mayor) their status and politicians and sex offenders was a defining intersection. AusLondonder (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the 19 articles (not a great time) and I only found 3 where the sex offenses stemmed form their political power: Charles Taylor, Bill Kramer, Moshe Katsav. (Based on your comment, I assume Milton Orkopoulos is a 4th and the article just doesn't give that background.) We disagree on the importance of the political angle with the Pitcairn sex abuse. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Orkopoulos's victim was a young staffer who he took to Parliament House and assaulted. I believe the Pitcairn case is clearly related to political power and three of the most senior political figures on an island of 60 were involved in sexual offending. AusLondonder (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This seems to be a reasonable enough subcategory Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. The parent is too vague to include all of them. It could include anything from war crimes to shoplifting. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Straight deletion would remove these articles from Category:Politicians convicted of crimes (which some/all of these articles are eligible members of) and an upmerge to that category would not be appropriate. Perhaps, these categories should (attempt to) only categorize a person as a criminal if they are notable as a criminal (and similarly, someone who is notable as a murderer etc shouldn't be categorized by their non-notable straight job), but in practice that probably wouldn't make much difference. This sex crimes category is currently under Category:Property crimes so this part of the category structure would benefit from some tidying. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since it would create a glaring hole in Category:Politicians convicted of crimes, and thus necessitate re-creation of the category. It does pose a risk that people will create things like "Chefs convicted of sex crimes", but the existence of the "Politicians convicted of crimes" category also carries that risk that people will create "Chefs convicted of crimes", and this has not been a real problem. Ergo, I would have to call "terriblizing" on that concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, remove articles from the category about crimes conducted before getting political power. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support that too, but we might need a rename (e.g., adding "while in office"), to prevent "pollution" again. SMcCandlish ☺[1]
    • I'd support that too - with revised text (and category rename if necessary). However, it wouldn't remove many articles from this category. DexDor (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2016 (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:Jain organizations[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Satisfies the criteria of WP:STRONGNAT, so should use Indian English spelling. Also a child cat of Category:Religious organisations based in India AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The religion is so overwhelmingly Indian in history, culture, and adherents that it makes sense to use the Indian spelling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ENGVAR --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency with parent category and the content of all the related articles. STRONGNAT is an article-content style guideline and so it doesn't really directly apply here, only secondarily through the effect it has on the article which in turn affects the category treatment (absent some strong reason not to go along with it for category-namespace-specific reasons).

    Potentially important: If I missed some consensus discussion by which it was determined that the category namespace does in fact have t comply with things like STRONGNAT/ENGVAR, please point me at it; I pre-concede that I'm absent from CfD sometimes for long stretches. Obviously, this namespace complies with MoS's general rules, but the *VAR/*RETAIN types of provisions all are highly specific in their wording to being about article content disputes. If we are certain they apply here, their wording needs to be tweaked a little (and this is good time to approach that, since WT:MOS has a thread open near the top of it about centralizing and cross-normalizing all those provision, which have been slowly advice-forking over the last several years in unconstructive ways. (Please ping me on replies to this.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @SMcCandlish: I don't think there was a single key discussion in which it was decided that STRONGNAT applied to categories, but I have seen it be argued and applied with relative frequency at CFD going back a number of years now. I'm guessing that this is so well accepted that we might be able to say it's uncontroversial now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I'll take this to the main talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SMcCandlish: You really don't like non-American spelling do you? AusLondonder (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this issue is taken elsewhere for discussion, can we get a link to it in this discussion? I might be interested in chiming in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense for ENGVAR issues to apply. So even if no-one has documented it previously, IAR. I'd enjoy seeing the feathers fly if we had a Category titled "International Cricket organizations". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 5 April 2016 (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:2016 establishments in Portland, Oregon[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Establishments are done by state not by city. Cities much larger than Portland- London, Tokyo, New York, don't have establishment categories. There was this CFD[2] for a Richmond Virginia establishments category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to keep as creator. I like being able to focus on the city level and not just the state level, and I wouldn't mind seeing similar categories for other major cities, when they are appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there actually anything wrong with having establishments by city, when appropriate? I would not be opposed to having similar categories for other major cities. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per Another Believer. One cited precedent doesn't mean much and no actual rationale is provided other than precedent. Permitting these for major cities, perhaps with some criteria like at least 5 entries, or over one page of entries in the parent cat., would ease the pile-up at some of the state/country/deparetement/etc. parent categories. (Feel free to ping me if this turns into much of a discussion, since I might not want to remain neutral, pending various viewpoints being offered.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Most of these seem to have an adequate population: the usual objection is that these categories are one article ones, which are useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no reason to subdivide to the city level. Also, we get to the fact that many organizations exist more at a state or national level than a city level. We also in the US get to the confusion of some events happening in a metro-Area but not in a city. The establishments by state is a justified split of what would be an unwidely large US category otherwise. Splitting below that level is going to hinder navigation with too many small categories. Anyway, in most cases the next split should be by county, but that is its own nightmare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Another Believer. MB298 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2016 (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:Mayors of Joplin, Missouri[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category only has 1 entry. Also merge the category's entries in Mayors of places in Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator forgets the other half of WP:SMALLCAT, "... with no potential for growth". Based on a review of the articles involved, this category has ample potential for growth and there is no deadline to complete the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While this technically has potential for growth, we routinely delete one-item categories if there's no evidence growth is likely. After 15 years of WP and only one qualifying article, and the heyday of WP article creation long being over, growth is unlikely. It can always be recreated later if there are 2+ articles. You could go write a stub and make it happen, Alansohn!  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear long-term potential for growth as local mayors are rarely notable per WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (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:Big cats of India[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A) To match parent category, Category:Felids; b) to match sibling categories (the only two yet – the rest are on my to-do list) Category:Felids of Africa and Category:Felids of Central America; c) "big" is an artificial categorization with nothing really to do with taxonomy, an unclear criterion, and it will not permit clean categorization (there is no "small cats" equivalent term, and all the other cats that should be in here will not fit into "Category:Felines of India", since they're not all Felis, but various genera like Prionailurus, etc.; d) there are not enough articles to bother with two categories anyway, while combining the "small" cats presently in Category:Mammals of India into one category with the "big" ones will produce a nice felids category like the African and Cent. Am. ones, and will help clean up what should eventually be a container category at the mammals parent category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Clear naming convention in tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought of speedying it, but wasn't sure two extant cats. (pun unavoidable >;-) was enough to claim a "convention". And there are people who are fans of lowest-common-denominator terms like "big cats".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Taxonomically the scope seems clearer. Just leave a note text at the category that the scope includes every species in the Felidae family, not just members of the Felis genus. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2016 (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:Populist parties in the United States[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. Note there are similar categories in other countries that might be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While radical populism can be described as an anti-elitist doctrine of fully subscribing to "power of the (ordinary) people" against established interests, populist rhetorics has usually been a tool to rally the people against some perceived or real common opponent, often the political establishment. Other parties tend to refer to populism in order to pretend their particular policies were supported by large majorities, though in fact they weren't.
So except for radical populism, this is not about a somewhat cohesive ideology, but about a political tool that has been used for various goals and is particularly hard to define and delineate. And while the argument in favor of collecting articles associated with Populism in the United States has some merits, it remains problematic.
Inclusion especially can't be based on various parties' names, infering "Populist Party" had any particular similarity in being more populist than other parties. In fact, these parties are so disparate that they don't really have much in common and can be more adequately categorized than as "Populist parties in the United States." PanchoS (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Comment Clearly WP:SUBJECTIVECAT/WP:SHAREDNAME. I also think Category:People's Party (United States) fails WP:COMMONNAME since is almost universally known as the "Populist Party", although that problem stems from the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The term populism itself is ill-defined. Per out article on the subject: "Academic definitions of populism have varied widely over the centuries, and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to denote appeals to "the people", "demagogy" and "catch-all" politics or as a label for new types of parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, unlike conservatives or socialists, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them." Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hopelessly unclear inclusion criteria, even if I don't really buy the "one group doen't like it, so it's PoV to use it about them" idea hinted at above (or at last inferable).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (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:South Asian cricketers who have acted in movies[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've just come across this one and I know that at first glance it might seem like overcategorisation but I think it's worth saving with a rename. Obviously the "South Asian" has to go - it doesn't fit any of the hierarchies, and there's no global category at present. But cricketers who have gone into acting is probably enough of a "thing" that one could write an article on it, even if it is less apparent to Western eyes and certainly USian ones. Obviously the subcontinent blurs the lines most heavily between cricket and showbiz, but one can go back to C. Aubrey Smith who is probably the only England captain with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and even the likes of Dale Steyn and Derek Pringle have appeared in films aside from all the Bollywooders. It's not a category I'd defend to the death, and I'm not tied to the exact wording, but any thoughts? Le Deluge (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non-defining. The only example of an actor-occupation category tree I know of is Category:Actor-politicians, which I think is the exception to the rule. Looking at some of the entries in this category, Sunil Gavaskar, for example, mentions nothing about acting in the article lead and has a minimal mention in the body of the article (two acting credits in total). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lugnuts' rationale. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - really, we need a category for this? Why? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic for cricketers. As above, many cricketers have done minor roles in films, but they're barely noted for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there might be an argument for this. There is a bit of a thing about Indian cricket stars (in particular) heading off to Bollywood. But I think we'd need to have an article on the subject to really justify it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most definitely not a defining characteristic for cricketers or actors. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a defining feature. Additionally, the proposed name would suggest that cricketers acting in commercial advertisements would also be included in the category and that's a trivial classification. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 01:28, 15 March 2016 (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:Officials of provincial-ministerial level and above born after 1960[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. – Fayenatic London 23:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly random intersection of two characteristics. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I sympathize with how the title of this category would seem rather "random" to the nominator. In Chinese officialdom, age is an extremely important factor in promoting future leaders. Due to mandated retirement age, those born after 1960 and who have made it to the provincial-ministerial level stands a far greater chance at ascending to higher ranks. Therefore, "the post-1960" cohort of officials has become subject to many articles analyzing Chinese politics, so much so that they have a catch-all moniker which is used specifically to refer to this group: Liu-ling Hou (literally, "after 1960"). For example see Which are the High-level Talents born after 1960? The New Stars of Chinese politics: Appearance of Those born after 1960 and Provincial and Ministerial-Rank Officials Born After 1960 Will Influence China’s Future. This article goes even further, systematically listing all the minister-level officials born after 1960 who have obtained provincial-ministerial rank. After reading the latter article, I was convinced that Wikipedia can become a useful resource for those seeking to do research on this issue, therefore I created the category. I urge the nominator to reconsider. Colipon+(Talk) 02:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a defining characteristic. Also, in a couple of years the cutoff of 1960 will have expired. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:ARBITRARYCAT. If 1960 were some historical dividing line in China, I would think differently. In addition this is an odd intersection. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I understand that the category seems arbitrary, but I really urge the editors, if possible, to read translated versions of the pages I outlined above. Clearly Chinese political analysts treat this group of individuals as a distinct concept unto itself. Again the nuances of the Chinese political system may not be easily understood by those from liberal democratic states or even those from other Communist countries. For instance the "birth year" cutoff at the next party congress is 1950. Given the way this age-cutoff system works, the 25-member politburo that will ascend to power at the 20th Party Congress in 2022 will be composed overwhelmingly of individuals in this cohort. If we have compiled lists of speculative Supreme Court appointments of Barack Obama, then I really see deletion of this group as a double standard caused by systemic bias. The point about "expiration" is well taken, although not relevant for at least another 10 years (we have many categories such as "Current serving [position x]" which expire even sooner than that). Perhaps @Zanhe:, @Shwangtianyuan: or @Trust Is All You Need: can speak to this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whoah, that's an arbitrary intersection. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Colipon.. Not arbitary. If this is deleted it just proves the lack of knowledge in Chinese politics.... --TIAYN (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is a critical (and therefore notable) aspect of Chinese politics, we should have an article on the topic. Then, I'd wholeheartedly oppose the proposal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article would be entitled "age and contemporary Chinese politics" and I would be happy to write it, certainly. But I do hope that there is some recognition in the mean time that I have demonstrated the appropriateness of the category with the articles I link above. Colipon+(Talk) 10:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go for it. I'm sure there's no need for this to be closed swiftly. Though I'm still not sure I follow the connection between "age" and a specific year. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also welcome coverage of the topic in the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The keep rationale makes no sense; we'd have to rename the category ever year, since people change changes with the passage of time but our category name would not. And del per other rationales; this is a non-defining intersection. Also, burying secret clues in the categories names is not educational, nor useful as a categorization scheme; what is helpful to readers is to explain that the keepers say above in an actual article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above, essay WP:DNWAUC etc. This may be suitable for a list (as part of a larger article) - and I suspect that the category creator was trying to create a list (e.g. they created this category with no parent categories and have commented "If we have compiled lists..."). DexDor (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we do keep it then it needs renaming with the country included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an arbitrary, time sensitive category. Even if being 55 or younger and in a position of at least a certain level makes someone part of a group, do we leave the 1960 cut-off, or do we have it as a changing category. Neither way makes sense. This is a super-resentist category we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (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:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum[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. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy (see discussion below). The article is at United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, so this proposal would bring the article name and category name into conformity per C2D. The name of the article conforms with the relevant article name convention in WP:NCGAL. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Support Category should match article title and the move was in accordance with naming conventions. Number 57 11:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the article name. Also, to avoid confusion with the other UK referendum. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shame speedy was not allowed to go through. Instead an incorrect cat was allowed to stand for some time. AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been ranting for awhile now that this is what happens when users adhere strictly to the speedy criteria for the sake of the rules rather than for the reasons the criteria exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have been frustrated by the attitude shown by a few editors there; I once had a speedy request opposed because although the renaming was in line with the category tree and all the other categories, the opposer did not like that format. It also frustrates me when some editors refuse to withdraw their opposition even after it's proved they were incorrect (although this applies in many discussion areas – I hope other admins take into account such editors – you can always tell when they've lost the argument but are too stubborn to change their mind because they simply stop responding to pings. Number 57 22:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with everything you wrote. The de facto principle has become: a user can oppose a speedy rename for any reason—all they have do is write "oppose", and it will force a full CFD. I've seen many users do as you report—oppose a change simply because they don't like the existing standard format. But of course they can never be bothered to start a nomination to change the standard format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would support a small change of rules at CFDS but I'm not really sure how we can properly formulate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It requires no rule change. All it requires is users to think a bit more about why they are doing what they are doing and why the criteria exist and to be a bit more flexible and/or willing to withdraw opposition when facts are presented that demonstrate that renaming the category is all but inevitable. For instance, in this case, why wasn't the opposition to the category rename withdrawn when it was pointed out that the article rename conformed with a naming convention? I let it sit there, waiting for a response, for more than 10 days before I moved it. In the end, a lot of time is wasted by waiting for responses that never come and then being forced to move these to full discussions when they should be dealt with speedily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I do now will try to do in the case of speedy objection is try to move to full discussion immediately. Opposition is virtually never withdrawn. AusLondonder (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's exactly the thing I'd favor to change. If someone objects but doesn't want to discuss, an uninvolved admin should be allowed to decide in favor of CFDS after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think that would be fair enough and I wouldn't criticise an admin for doing that. It's probably within an admin's discretion to do so, but I can understand why one would hesitate to do it, even if the opposition seems a bit off the wall. A reasonable waiting period would have to be allowed for the opposer to respond, so in the end, it might be more popular for the nominator to just decide it's not worth it and do as AusLondoner suggests and move it immediately. The latter is certainly the more straightforward option. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria for speedy actions are very precise. They provide for a limited number of tightly-defined exceptions to general principle of consensus, and the criteria for speedy renaming of categories follows that principle.
    If editors want looser criteria for CFD/S, they should seek consensus for such a change. But in the meantime, it is deplorable that some editors continue to tendentiously misuse CFD discussions to complain at great length about the speedy criteria being applied as they actually are, rather than as the moaners would like them to be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: What you either cannot see or refuse to acknowledge is that interpretations of the criteria as they current stand may validly vary from editor to editor. You may see them as very precise and inflexible, but not all editors do see them in this way. My comments are meant to encourage a more flexible interpretation of the criteria. I can recognise that your views can legitimately be different on this issue and that it's OK to disagree; you should be able to reciprocate. But I guess when you see WP principles as being inflexible, the personal inability to acknowledge the viability of alternate viewpoints naturally follows.
I have advocated for my view, because (naturally) I feel that it is a correct one and the one that leads to the best results. But I have never suggested that opposing views on the subject are invalid, as you seem to be suggesting about mine. I have no desire to change the criteria themselves nor to make such a proposal, as you've suggested I do a number of times; what I am advocating is flexibility in applying them as they are currently written.
Users (should) get to set the own parameters of their own arguments, so that's all I'm asking that you acknowledge. If you cannot engage with such advocacy and discussion and only view it as "moaning"—then please!—just ignore it! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Ol’factory, my complaint is that instead of taking the asdvocacy and discussion to its proper venue by opening an RFC, you take this procedural issue to CFD after CFD, repeating the same meta-discussion in numerous places. That's no way to resolve the issue; it's just a disruptive repetition which cannot resolve your complaint. That's why I describe it as tendentious moaning.
As to the legitimacy of other views ... sheesh. Get a mirrror.
For several months now, you have been busy criticising those you disagree with as inflexible pedants who read the criteria as they are written rather than interpreting them according to your viuew to mean something other than the words they say.
There are several possible solutions to this. You could stop trying to use CFD/S for moves which yuou know are likely to be opposed, and save yourself time and energy by taking them directly to full CFD. Or you could open an RFC to either change the speedy criteria or seek a consensus for your inter[retation of them.
You are an experienced editor, so why not try one of the paths which could resolve this? I would be happy to work with you in drafting an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"CFD after CFD ..."—yeah, bringing it up twice in ten weeks is pretty disruptive. (eye roll). And as you'll notice, other editors raised the issue in this discussion, so I've raised it exactly once. But if you don't like what we discuss or the venue we discuss it in, just don't participate or ignore it. It's possible to build consensus on an issue outside of the venue that you view as ideal. I can understand how it could make you uncomfortable, though. There are three of us in this discussion alone who are more or less on the same page, so it's unfortunate that you can't at least acknowledge that the words as written can mean different things to different people. I've never said you are wrong or that your views are illegitimate—being pedantic is not wrong, it's just placing an emphasis in things that are ultimately not as important as other things. It would be nice if such an acknowledgement was reciprocated. Thanks for all the advice, though—you can rest assured that it was fully considered. I'm pretty happy right now with how I spend my time and energy, though. I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, so your suggestion that I am doing otherwise is off the mark. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GO, you have been editing for long enough to be well aware of WP:MULTI, yet here you are explicitly championing the idea of pursuing your campaign in multiple venues, and trying to sneer at me for challenging that. Very poor conduct, esp for an admin.
I'm also rather fed up with your vague claims that the words as written can mean different things to different people ... which you repeat, without ever clarifying what you read the words to mean. Your point seems to be instead that you can interpret them as you like, without ever pinning down any coherent meaning to them, and that you should be free to berate editors who read them at face value ... and still whine when your non-textual reading is challenged.
Rather than seeking a consensus to clarify where the limits of CFD/S actually lie, your aim appears to be to simply browbeat editors who object to your proposed moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong about my aim and motives. You're even wrong about the sneer, and the browbeating, the vagueness, and the suggestion that I am "championing" this in multiple venues. I've been casually discussing it when it arises—there has been no concerted plan on my part to organize a structured discussion on it. I clarified some of the ways I interpret the guidelines in a previous (but still ongoing) discussion where this issue first arose. My comment was very long, and I won't repeat it here. See my comments below on the "mean what it says" approach, though. If you're fed up with me, you can always just walk away from the discussion; no one's compelling you to continue with it. I'm just not as into it as you seem to be suggesting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The current name was so confusing I had to read it three times.

    As for the above meta-dispute, which is important, I concur with Good Olfactory that "this is what happens when users adhere strictly to the speedy criteria for the sake of the rules rather than for the reasons the criteria exist"; that "interpretations of the criteria as they current stand may validly vary from editor to editor. [Some] may see them as very precise and inflexible, but not all editors do see them in this way"' and that we should "encourage a more flexible interpretation of the criteria". I disagree with BrownHairedGirl (despite frequently agreement on much else) that raising these issues here is disruptive in any way, and also draw attention to WP:CONSENSUS: It may form anywhere, and is not required to form at the time or venue that some parties[s] preferred that it were discussed. I think we're all aware that much of CfD procedure is hashed out "off-topic" in these listings, not on its rather disused talk page. RfCs are only needed when a) consensus isn't being achieved through other channels, and b) the entire community needs to be asked for input to resolve it (or to figure out how to resolve it). Given that this listing is WP:SNOWBALLing easily in favor of the nomination, and that multiple editors believe it should have been speedied, it essentially is not possible that disruption is happening (here, now); this is called clear and expedient resolution (at least of the small issue if not the large one). Finally, "interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] viuew to mean something other than the words they say" is not what anyone has proposed; rather, that they be interpreted like all other policy/process, through the lens of WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the interplay between WP:PROCESS and WP:IAR, and expedient WP:DR; this process does not exist for it's own sake, it only exists to facilitate getting on with it. CfD is far too time-consuming, hand-wringing, and procedural. A strong argument can be made that it has slide into contravention of the principles of WP:5P (at "mercilessly edited"), the WP:BOLD guideline, and the policy of WP:EDITING (no one has to ask permission first). We're supposed to just edit as we think is best without agonizing over whether any change will result in imperfection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply. This really isn't complicated. If editors want the speedy criteria to be looser, then write them looser. But unless until they are changed, they mean what they say -- and words should continue to be read by their plain English meaning. Precisely enumerated criteria should not be subject to some sort of theological interpretation process by which the words written are so irrelevant that an editor such as Good Ol’factory feels entitled to berate other editors for reading the words as written. Even the English courts, with their armies of scholarly layers, try to follow the plain meaning rule except where there is pressing reason to regard the plain meaning as mistaken -- and the English courts have been retreating from the main such exception, Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3.
The aim of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is precisely to avoid the sort of complex interpretation processes which the courts engage in. We could have CFD/s criteria written as a loose of principles open to interpretation, but we don't; we have a set of precise criteruis which editors should be entitled to read as a set of precise criteria.
Sorry, SMcCandlish but "interpreting [criteria] according to [one's own] view to mean something other than the words they say" is exactly what GO was advocating at CFD 2016 February 10#Category:MediaCorp. In that case, GO threw all their toys out of the pram because editors blocked a move which didn't meet the criterion chosen. There was no ambiguity: even GO made no attempt at all to claim that the category in question actually met C2D. GO's argument was simply that the move seemed like an uncontroversial good idea ... but that's not what any of the speedy criteria permit. All of the speedy criteria are about precisely-defined technical circumstances, which simply didn't apply. GO writes above that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.
This case is a partial re-run: the article title is neither stable, nor the result of an RM discussion.
However well-intentioned a move proposal, it is dishonest to seek to justify it by a criterion whose plain English meaning is wholly unmet (as with Mediacorp), or to insist that it is uncontroversial when there is a reasoned objection (this case).
I can well understand and respect the argument that there should be a looser approach to CFD/S, permitting moves which are believed to be uncontroversial housekeeping, but don't fit any of the existing criteria. I am genuinely unsure whether I would support it, but I am sure that there is a reasonable case to be made for it. As I suggested before, it could be something along the lines of WP:G6 "C2F: housekeeping and other uncontroversial moves".
It's time for GO and others to either put up or shut up: seek consensus for those few extra words to meet your requirements ... or stop whining about the fact that other editors are aware that there is currently no such clause. In the meantime, a full CFD is no big deal: it is time-consuming only of there are objections ... but since en.wp works by consensus, anything is time-consuming if there are objections.
Oh, and it's all v well citing WP:BOLD ... but that guideline specifically warns that extra caution should be applied to category moves, because they affect multiple pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies, guidelines, procedures, essays with project-wide acceptance as best practices, information pages, principles statements, etc. (i.e. "rules") all "mean what they say", including BOLD, IAR, NOT#BUREAUCRACY, 5P, EDITING, LAWYER, and COMMONSENSE. We can't not take those particular ones at face value with one hand, then with the other take one single policypage to be – no matter what – "meaning what it says", since all these rules tell us not to do that. It's a tautology (in the self-proof sense). When in doubt, we follow the spirit of the rules, not the most nit-picky way they can be interpreted, if that interpretation and the spirit are in conflict. None of our process exists for it's own sake; it's all a means to an end, which should not be thwarted by the means that serve it. Otherwise it's just a cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face problem. Whether GC sometimes makes mistakes doesn't seem pertinent; last I looked, we all do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, SMcCandlish, is that you and Good Ol’factory are trying to have things both ways at once.
You cite WP:LAWYER, WP:COMMONSENSE etc ... but there is nothing on this earth more lawyerly or less commonsensical than trying to claim that a precisely-worded instruction should be read as meaning something so completely different to its very precise words that editors get berated for pointing out that there is zero correlation with the criterion. That just propels us us into a madhouse where we all read as Humpty Dumpty speaks: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Whether you like it or not, the fact is that WP:C2A/B/C/D/E is a set of very precise instructions, and has been such ever since its creation. You and GO both point to a plausible case that such precision contravenes fundamental policies, and I assume that you are both sincere in doing so.
So, why not set out your case, and seek consensus for changes to the speedy criteria so that their plain English meaning reflects your view of what they should mean?
You see, WP:Consensus is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. The current consensus is that the bots move categories in only 2 situations: a) after a consensus discussion, or b) if the case meets one or more of a set of tightly-defined criteria. You are quite right to point out that all policies and guidelines are a means to an end ... and one of the key goals in this case is to ensure category changes (which by definition affect many articles) have prior consensus, to avoid disruptive ping-ponging. That's why WP:BOLD urges caution wrt to categories.
Don't forget too that bots are not allowed to be WP:BOLD: there must be a prior consensus for bot actions, and even for manual AWB usage. CFD/S actions are implemented by bots, and those bots need a consensus backing.
As I noted above closest parallel to this is WP:CSD, which does include a "general housekeeping" clause for deletion (WP:G6). CFD/S does not include such a clause ... yet you and GO want CFD/S to be read as if it was there. GO even wants to be able to berate other editors for challenging GO's use of criteria which the relevant category clearly fails!
So why not just sort this out, and clarify whether the current wording reflects consensus?
We could add a rider at the top to indicate that these criteria are all fuzzy, and editors are free to interpret them however they like. We could add a loose WP:G6 equivalent. Or we could create some sort of WP:PROD equivalent, with no criteria, but explicitly stoppable by any challenge. Or maybe there are other possibilities ... but whatever option might be chosen, editors have a right to expect that a policy means what it says, and not something completely different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand both sides very well in this discussion, on the one hand it's frustrating when someone objects without a reason or with a stupid reason, on the other hand it is pretty arbitrary to label a reason as stupid while there aren't any further guidelines about the definition of stupid. I think we should clarify the rules when we can, to avoid this kind of discussions. For example, in a previous discussion about a category rename following an article rename I proposed to consider an article rename stable after one month as a reasonable default period. We can always still deviate from a default by discussion, but at least if we adopt a default like this we don't have to discuss on every occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we did do something like that, I'm not sure that it would reduce the incidence of the so-called "stupid" objections. We created C2D for a similar reason—to avoid having to discuss it every time a user proposed matching the category name to the corresponding article name. But users still fairly routinely object to the application of C2D, even when it clearly meets any user's interpretation of the criteria, and there are still extensive discussions for particular categories as to whether the C2D principle should apply or not. From what I have seen, users generally oppose when they want to oppose at WP:CFDS—it doesn't much depend on the actual content of the criteria that are being relied on. (That said, I would agree that a month after a move without any controversy or discussion regarding that move should be considered "stable enough", and I would probably support an arbitrary guideline like this if it was proposed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory and BrownHairedGirl: I believe the section below no longer contributes to the nomination nor to the meta discussion. I sincerely hope that you will continue this discussion on a User talk page in order to reach some form of consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that what is below adds very little to this nomination. After being called a liar, though, I've lost interest in continuing the discussion elsewhere. I think you did the right thing in collapsing the section off. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this should have been discussed on a User talk page
A problem with the "it means what it says" approach is that many words are not particularly precise (multiple related but differing definitions, differences in regional usage, etc.), especially in the English language, and when they are combined into phrases or sentences in English, they often become even less so. BrownHairedGirl appears to not even be able to conceive that a word, or a phrase, or a sentence might not mean exactly what s/he interprets it as meaning. That demonstrates quite a healthy esteem for one's own views, but it's also a little bit close-minded, whether deliberately or accidentally. If that barrier cannot be overcome, I'm not sure there is much point in continuing discussion. User:BrownHairedGirl, you seem surprised that few editors are keen to start a discussion on these matters in other forums, as you've suggested. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there might be a reason for that that doesn't involve the substance of this issue but rather involves the parties that would be involved in the discussion. Whisper: maybe we're just not excited about discussing this if you are going to be involved. ...
I must respond, though, to a suggestion made above that I am lying: it was stated above that "GO writes above that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed, which is utterly untrue: the MediaCorp nomination was of a category which GO knew did not meet the criterion, and which they knew would be opposed.". No, I actually believed it did meet the criterion (I still do—that's the very genesis behind the discussion relating to the suggestion there's more than one way to interpret the criteria), and although I knew that it had been opposed once, I did not think users would oppose it again once I provided further explanation of why it was an uncontroversial move. And you know—I was partially right. The user who opposed it initially did not oppose it again, though you did. I did not anticipate the type of opposition you set out, which I view essentially as process for process' sake. So please, User:BrownHairedGirl, feel free to continue to discuss, but I would draw a line with suggesting that you know what I (or other users, for that matter) thought or believed. I don't really care if you ridicule me and suggest that I'm acting like a baby and that I threw my toys out of my pram—that's fun, and I enjoy it because I take the source into account and understand that it's hyperbole and not to be taken literally. But I don't like it when it's suggested by anyone that I am dishonest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GO, I see two possibilities here. One is that you are not telling the truth when you say that I only nominate categories for speedy renaming that I believe meet the criteria and are unlikely to be opposed. The other is that you genuinely believe that Mediacorp met the criteria set out in plain English at WP:C2D ... and that you genuinely believed that a proposal clearly rejected on straightforward procedural grounds was unlikely to be rejected again, even tho the procedural circumstances were unchanged (and you made no attempt to claim that they had changed).
I have repeatedly challenged you to explain how you believe that category to fit the terms of C2D ... and you have repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, you make a vague wave to broad principles which you believe justify overlooking the precise phrasing of C2D. However, at no point in these discussions have you ever attempted to set out any explanation of how you read C2D to justify its use in that case.
I can see the case for an IAR approach. My point all along has simply been that if we are going to have IAR speedies at CFD/S, a consensus to do so should be established through centralised discussion, and the guidelines should be clear about that, possibly along the lines of WP:G6.
However, you repeatedly insist that I am unable to consider a different interpretation. That is entirely false -- the issue here is that there is no other explanation to consider because you repeatedly refuse to explain how you came to read the words as permitting your proposed renaming of MediaCorp, other than by ignoring them. If you don't want to explain it, that is up to you -- but in that case you should stop trying to smear me as someone who won't listen to the explanation which you refuse to give. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your options were either that the person was lying or that you weren't getting the straight answer that you desired—so you chose the lying option??! Next time try assuming the best about someone rather than assuming that they are a liar. It's not a great way to operate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) GO, I repeat that I am very happy to consider a different interpretation. However, you have refused to offer that interpretation, and even when challenged again you make a vague wave rather than posting a diff. One of the reasons that I point to dishonest conduct is that you repeatedly smear me as refusing to consider a case which you refuse to set out. That is, in your phrase, "not a great way to operate".
One claim which you have repeatedly made is that my objection was "process for process sake". I happen to believe that there is an important reason for the process there, and am happy to accept that others may sincerely attach less significance to that process; that is legitimate disagreement.
But the point at stake here is your separate repeated insistence that the words of C2D can be read in such a way as to permit that move. The explanation of 'how those words can be read in that way is what you still refuse to provide, even while you proceed to smear me as someone unwilling to consider what you haven't written.
Theoretically, it may possibly be the case that you are genuinely unable to distinguish between a) applying WP:IAR and b) reading the text differently. If that's the case, then this discussion will continue to be circular ... but having seen your contributions over many years, I doubt it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't call other editors liars—that's completely out of bounds and no amount of after-the-fact explanation or attempting to accuse me of "smearing" (oh, the irony) is going to take away that you assumed the absolute worst about another editor. For the record, I'm not refusing to provide what you want. I have provided it elsewhere—not in this discussion, because it's not particularly relevant and it deals with a different discussion. If you have missed it, I'm not going to repeat it, because it is longish I just don't care that much whether you are personally satisfied by my answers or not. Better things to do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- While the present name is in fact unique, because the previous referendum related to the EEC, there will be those who forget that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2016 (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.

States of Nigeria[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. Four editors (whether they !voted or not) had a preference for all pages/categories to be at StateName State, and another recorded a formal Oppose at least for the ambiguous ones; only two would give priority to making the categories match the article names. Therefore I do find a consensus to "keep", rather than the alternative outcome "no consensus". – Fayenatic London 23:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: All of these are C2D speedy-type changes: "Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name". I propose renaming the categories to match the corresponding article names.
The articles for states of Nigeria are not named in a unified fashion, nor should they be, since every name presents unique considerations. Some are in the format "FOO State", some are in the format "FOO (state)" and some are in the undisambiguated form "FOO", either because they are unambiguous or they are the clear primary meaning. In contrast, all of the categories have been named "FOO State". The category system should not be attempting to enforce a conformity in naming practice that does not exist in article space. Many of the state names have never been discussed and could be, which could perhaps eventually result in a more unified naming scheme. However, until that happens via article discussions, there are no good reasons for the principle of C2D to not apply in these cases.
There are many subcategories; if categories are renamed as a result of this discussion, I commit to nominate the subcategories as follow-up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the articles were all in the form 'Foo State' until an editor boldly moved some of them, eg diff. I would personally prefer to see all the articles moved back to the consistent format of 2014. (Most of the articles use 'Foo State' in the text throughout the article, which is the conventional usage IMO.) Oculi (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reasonable position, but recently a user formally proposed that Kwara be moved to "Kwara State" and the discussion ended in no consensus. As I pointed out in that discussion, the "FOO State" forms are not even the official names of the states, and I think in most cases "FOO State" is used no more commonly that the official name without "State". I say rename the categories for now, and if an article title ever changes, then make the change to the category name. That's the usual practice, and I see no reason not to implement it here. I'd be the first one to support nominating the category for renaming if the article title changed. The undiscussed nature of some of the article moves is one reason I am proposing this at a full discussion as opposed to the speedy section. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory: Comment tending to Oppose and if anything Move the articles. I absolutely support the principle of matching categories to articles in general. However from what GO is saying, there's no strong format for the article name, so in this case I'd tend to let the category tail wag the article dog. There are massive advantages to having a standard format for categories - it leads to predictability, which in turn makes categories more likely to be used and avoids a lot of wasted work renaming categories and duplicating them (which reminds me, there's some categories out there using eg "Czech Republic" without-a-"the" as an adjective, as I found when I made duplicate "Czech" ones last night. It also makes it easier to the bot guys to do things, which further reduces the load on human editors - these are potentially big hierarchies, some states are bigger than countries with their own government, judiciary etc. I think I'd rather have one cat redirect at the top of the hierarchy then have to set up thousands to nudge people to the right variation on Foo/Foo State/Foo (state) for every subcategory - it's like Georgia only far worse. So I'd keep the cats at Foo State - and if we're going to do nothing in the face of no consensus, then surely we should treat the original move as being against that lack of consensus and go back to pre-2014 state? I'd also suggest that it will be far harder to reach consensus on a single state where you don't see the benefit of standardisation than a debate on moving every state to a uniform destination. So for me it's Category:Foo State and either reversing the original article move on the grounds of there being no consensus for it or having another debate to move every article back to Foo State.Le Deluge (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Le Deluge: I would say that's a good plan in theory, but probably unlikely to be achieved, given the reality of the WP:COMMONNAME (and official name) for many of the states. As always, the onus is on those who think the articles can and should be renamed to do something about it. We can continue to delay on the categories and say, "'well, the articles should change", or we can just get on with implementing what is the usual practice. These proposed changes do not have to be permanent! If and when an article name changes, the categories will follow, per usual practice. This delay, delay and humming and hawing has been going on for months now, and nothing gets done one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose as too soon / too iffy and potential WP:FAITACCOMPLI. The bold moves should be undone at the WP:RM section for that, and a proper RM (or series thereof) held, before it will be clear what to do with them in category space.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per speedy criteria. This is definitely not a case of WP:FAITACCOMPLI: if any articles are moved in the (near) future, categories may follow speedily, without much effort. It seems reasonable though not to close this category discussion yet if (and only if) an RM discussion is actually taking place. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While I am not familiar with the geography of Nigeria, "plateau" is an ordinary word, and the state will always be referred to abroad as Plateau State, so that that one at least should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example of why we need the category names to match the article names—it avoids having RM discussions in article space and then duplicating them again at CFD. Peterkingiron's comment is the sort of argument to be made in discussing what the article should be named. No one is moving to discuss these article names at RM, yet everyone is scared to rename the categories to match? Pick a lane! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, partially. There are two sets here.
  1. Abia, Adamawa, Benue, Cross River, Edo, Imo, Ogun, Osun, Plateau and Taraba. The name is ambiguous or is mainly used for something else, so is always qualified
  2. Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Jigawa, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Yobe and Zamfara. The name almost always refers to the state and is rarely qualified.
For the first type Abia State is better than Abia (state) for both the article name and matching category, because that is how it is always written. A check on "what links here" shows that most links are to Abia State, and the few links to Abia (state) are artificial. The articles in the first set should be moved to their common names, which would match the present categories. For the second set the change to make the category match the article name is reasonable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a task to be pursued via WP:RM, and not in CFD. But no one ever pursues it there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory: I see now that in September 2005 User:Jamie Tubers moved the first set with edit summaries like "Moved page Taraba State to Taraba (state): more appropriate dab". Why that is a more appropriate dab is beyond me, when the article text will always say "he was governor of Taraba State" or maybe "she was born in Taraba state" but will never say "is the principal river of Taraba (state)". If you request a move of the articles back to their natural titles at WP:RM and canvas me, I will support your proposal. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the offer. I'm not going to propose moving any articles, though, as I don't have any strong preferences or views as to what would be most appropriate. I'm just proposing here to match the category names with the existing article names. If the article names ever change, then I would support renaming the categories to match the new names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here because I was pinged by Aymatth2; well, the articles were moved because per WP:COMMON, the subjects brings up higher number of searches, when without the "state", than otherwise. Couple with the fact that the official name is without "state", made the moving necessary.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the official name of the states are set out in the constitution, and "State" is not included in any of the state names. Official sources sometimes include the "State", as with state seals and websites and the like, but that would simply be an official usage, not the official name that is established by law. But, as you say, the common name is more relevant so this is kind of a side issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't read the entire comments here, so am not sure if I am supporting or opposing anything, but what I know is that for uniformity sake, it is best if all states are in the form stateName State. Many of these states have different notable and popular meanings. Osun and Ogun are gods, Lagos is ambiguous, etc. But when you say Osun State, Ogun State, Lagos State, etc. It is exactly clear what you mean. The same should apply for the categories. Darreg (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the articles on Nigerian states should moved back to titles like "StateName State" but not for the sake of uniformity. See Talk:Anambra#Requested move 7 May 2016. My reason is that reliable sources generally use the form "StateName State". The mass move from standard titles to strange ones like "Abia (state)" or "Kogi" makes Wikipedia look arrogant and ignorant. The official language of Nigeria is English, but it is not American or British English. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2016 (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/2016_March_14&oldid=1138410042"