Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19[edit]

Category:EVV players[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 . – Fayenatic London 23:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy, originally nominated to match the category name to the article name EVV (football club). A copy of the speedy nomination and stated opposition is included below. Consensus for categories has trended towards the position that categories use the same name format for a subject as is used for that subject's Wikipedia article, even if so doing creates "unnecessary disambiguation". E.g., Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state). This approach makes it possible to avoid having to debate the potential ambiguity (or lack thereof) of every conceivable category formulation. (In any case, the name is somewhat ambiguous. FC Eindhoven used to be known as "EVV Eindhoven".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • If that's the case, your proposal still wouldn't be helpful as "EVV (football club)" is then ambiguous and we would need to disambiguate further. -- Tavix (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: It's extremely helpful in that it follows the main article, which is the standard practice. I don't understand how you could suggest that it's not an improvement at least. In my opinion, it's more confusing to have category names go off in their own direction and decide to disambiguate where the article has decided not to. Category names do not exist in a vacuum that is walled off from article space. If the name for the club is good enough for an article name, it's good enough for the category name. Otherwise, the beef is with the article name, which is not something we address directly here. (But given that one club is defunct and the other is extant, I suspect that the extant one may be the primary meaning of EVV as it relates to football clubs. But as I said, that's an issue for another forum.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category was simply "EVV" then, yes, it should have disambiguation since EVV is ambiguous. In my opinion, the "main article" given the category "EVV players" would be an article dealing specifically dealing with "EVV players" (probably a list). For example, even though the article on the St. Louis Blues hockey team used to have parenthetical disambiguation to distinguish it from Saint Louis Blues (song) (until 2011), the List of St. Louis Blues players never used disambiguation; it was obvious it referred to players of the hockey team and not players of the song. (I'll also note that Category:St. Louis Blues players never used disambiguation either.) I feel this situation is the same way. Should there be a List of EVV players, I would say that wouldn't need disambiguation (and if it does, it'd need to be more specific than simply "(football club)"), and the category should follow suit. Aside from not being necessary, I'd also argue that it's an issue of conciseness. Since there's often several categories at the bottom of a page, it's a lot easier to digest the names of categories when there's less "distraction" when there's no/less parenthetical disambiguation in category names. If I'm looking at the categories on a footballer, of course "EVV players" are going to refer to a football club, there's no confusion there. -- Tavix (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, anyone could come along and create a parent category for the team, and call it Category:EVV. Then it would be eligible for speedy renaming to Category:EVV (football club), and under those same rules, the subcategory for players would then be renamed as well to match. I don't see why the standards that are very broadly apply suddenly change when there is not yet a parent category named after the team. The underlying issue is quite a bit broader than this one discussion, and the length and depth of the discussion on this already re-emphasizes to me the wisdom of having a standard that is applied – exactly so these types of debates on disambiguation can be avoided every time they arise in the thousands of contexts that they do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "standard" should be common sense: use disambiguation when it's necessary, don't use disambiguation when it's not necessary. The debates happen when common sense misalign with these other standards. I'm sure it'll all be worked out, though. -- Tavix (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that'll work on WP. (grin.) The problem, of course, is that what some users find to be common sense and obvious will contradict what other users think is the same. That's why we need objective standards, not subjective ones. The objective standards have worked reasonably well in the past; I think we should continue to use them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we really categorizing football players by the amateur club that they played for before becoming professional? It doesn't sound like defining to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it is a bit weird. I'm not sure how widespread this is or if this is an outlier in that regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite widespread if only in the Netherlands, I haven't looked at other countries. Most categories with less than 10 players in it are amateur clubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Good Olfactory and Marcocapelle: - if the club is notable for an article, and a footballer has played for them, then we at WT:FOOTY categorise them accordingly. There is nothing unusual about this category. GiantSnowman 12:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regardless of what is regularly done, Marco's comment (to me) suggests a hint of "yes, but should we" categorize in this way. Is playing for a particular amateur club defining for the footballers? I don't know – maybe it is – but to me it seems like it might at least be a questionable proposition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's true that there is a football notability requirement that states that playing for an international team, or in a fully-professional league, makes you notable. But here we are saying "this player is notable for playing football - here are the teams he played for, regardless of level." That kind of categorisation is surely far more worthwhile than the hordes of 'Person from location' categories that infest this encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 19:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • The main problem I see would be that if taken to its logical conclusion, such a system (if applied across all sports, for instance) would result in a massive amount of category glut, the majority of which is not defining for most of those who would be included. I don't think pointing to other pre-existing gluts is a good justification. Obviously, it's an issue that goes beyond this one category, though; maybe some brave soul will tackle it one day. A more significant issue here I think it the issue of there being more than one sport club called "EVV", so isn't there some sort of need to change the name of the category so that it can be easily matched up to the relevant article about the correct club? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation. GiantSnowman 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article on EVV says it is an amateur club. Should it have a category at all? The two players listed oin the article with bio-articles are both brief stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 23 October 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:Indian medical doctors[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 as the category page was not tagged. The discussion was in any case pointing to "keep" (reverse merge is not needed as there is not currently any content in the Physicians categories), but this cannot be cited as a binding consensus, as there was nothing to draw the attention of interested editors who do not already look at CFD log pages. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to harmonize category tree, as Category:Physicians is the common name and the name used within Category:Physicians by nationality. Roland zh (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – medical doctor is the correct term in India (and the UK). Here is a related cfd. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is an ENGVAR issue, so it's OK to use the terminology that is more commonly used in India. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Hi and thank you both, also for the clarification of the origin of the naming; hence, from my side, you may kindly close the request, regards, Roland zh (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: so far not knowing these naming conventions, I started some a few days ago sub-categories related to Category:Indian women physicians, and yesterday, accordingly Category:Indian physicians by century, et al. Shall I rename these categories, and 'cat-a-lot'-move the related wikis accordingly, i.e. "Indian women medical doctors", "...by century", etc ? Thanks for your advice, Roland zh (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy to do those renames, Roland zh, I think it would be fine for you to do so. Alternatively, they could be nominated at WP:CFDS under C2E to have a bot process the changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i'am as it was a tiny step for a wiki-gnome, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is not an WP:ENGVAR issue — "medical doctor" is not a uniquely Indian (or British) term for what's called a "physician" everywhere else, but rather both terms coexist in all English dialects in a common usage vs. official title sort of way. The original debate claimed, for instance, that the term "physician" was an Americanism unknown in the UK — but that's blatantly contradicted by the fact that the governing body for doctors in the UK is called the Royal College of Physicians. And guess what the equivalent body is called in India? The Association of Physicians of India. And it's not even remotely difficult to find examples of "medical doctor" being used in the United States or Canada, either. I would not necessarily be opposed to the possibility of renaming all physicians categories to "medical doctors" on the grounds that that's arguably the more common term for them in everyday usage everywhere — but "special India/UK-specific ENGVAR from other dialects" this is not. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearcat: While it's true that both terms are used in all dialects of English, what makes it an ENGVAR issue is that "physician" means different things in different places. In some places, it means any person who has the equivalent of an MD degree. But in other places, it's a sub-type of MD, with surgeons being the other main subtype. In some places, "physicians" is the whole ball of wax, whereas in others, "medical doctors" is the whole ball of wax, with that ball of wax in the latter situation being made up of physicians and surgeons. The category tree appears to be categorizing the whole ball of wax, so it's appropriate to use the broader term used by each country. Maybe a better solution is to just use "medical doctors" throughout. (There are also the Association of Surgeons of India and Royal College of Surgeons – they are separate from the parallel physicians associations in both countries.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Medical doctors is an acceptable term everywhere, physicians is sometimes a synonym and sometimes much more specific. I think actual common use would suggest we should use medical doctors in all categories, but I am too lazy to nominate for such. However I support going to medical doctors wherever the issue is considered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge -- Yes. We do have a Royal College of Physicians in UK, but its members are I think not what we call "General Practitioners", but a speciality for a certain class of consultants. I do not know what the India practice is, but I would expect it to reflect the British one. It is important that WP should not allow mergers just so that the categories can have similar names, when the word used has different meanings in different ENGVAR contexts. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term physician is used in the UK, and probably in related juristictions, to designate a particular (quite important) medical speciality. The effect of our present scheme is that we cannot use it in the categorisation scheme. So there would be advantages in using the term medical doctor. But I'd like to be convinced that the term is acceptable everywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 28 October 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:Cartographers of the Mideast[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Middle East is the common name and the name used for the Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 19 October 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:La Liga clubs in Europe[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 4#Category:La Liga clubs in Europe. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes all the final matches of the eurocups with the Spanish clubs. But this matches are just included to the categories Category:Real Madrid C.F. matches, Category:FC Barcelona matches, Category:Valencia CF matches etc, which are subcategories of the Category:Spanish football club matches. Nothing to require a separate category -- it is enough the Category:Spanish football club matches with the subcategories per each club. Besides, we have similar categories neither for Serie A (Italy) no for Bundesliga etc {see Category:Football clubs in European football). It are seen no reasons for the existence of an exception for Spain. Unikalinho (talk) 09:52, 19 October 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:1st millennium in Thailand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 21#Category:1st millennium in Thailand

Category:One-letter disambiguation pages[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two-, three-, and four-letter variants of this category were deleted following a discussion at at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 10#Category:Two-letter disambiguation pages. Besides being recreations of categories that had been previously deleted, consensus was that they serve no useful purpose. While this one-letter category is not a recreation of a deleted category, I think the uselessness arguments apply equally well to it. Psychonaut (talk) 08:13, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1074817359"