Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 8

[edit]

Loughs of Northern Ireland

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Note that I left redirects, to avoid possible future confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates of Category:Lakes of Northern Ireland and its subcats; e.g. Category:Loughs of County Tyrone‎ duplicates Category:Lakes of County Tyrone‎.
Northern Ireland is a subcat of both UK and Ireland and in each case the convention is "lakes": Category:Lakes of the United Kingdom by country & Category:Lakes of Ireland. This "loughs" set is parented in neither, which may be why the duplication happened.
I have already checked that all pages are in the corresponding lakes category, so no need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Lakes in County Fermanagh" "Lakes of County Fermanagh" "Lakes in Fermanagh" "Lakes of Fermanagh" Total Lakes "Loughs in County Fermanagh" "Loughs of County Fermanagh" "Loughs in Fermanagh" "Loughs of Fermanagh" Total Loughs
Gbooks 14 hits 12 hits 12 hits 175 hits 215 0 hits 0 hits 4 hits 5 hits 9
Gscholar 1 hits 15 hits 4 hits 4 hits 24 0 hits 0 hits 2 hits 1 hits 3
JSTOR 1 hits 4 hits 1 hits 7 hits 13 0 hits 0 hits 2 hits 0 hits 2
  • I really haven't the faintest idea how these random esoteric Google searches prove anything. Fancy finding any books or sources about lakes or loughs in Northern Ireland? Wouldn't you consider Google maps and Ordnance Survey to be far more reliable proof of what the lakes of Northern Ireland are called? Sionk (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sionk: random esoteric???? What earth are you on about?
      Those searches are neither random nor esoteric. As set out at WP:COMMONNAME they a comprehensive tests of which collective noun is used in WP:reliable sources: same set of phrases applied to both loughs and lakes and repeated on 3 sets of sources. The result is exceptionally clearcut.
      Maps are utterly useless because they do not use text to describe a set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sionk: You misunderstand the issues on all 3 points:
  1. You say The issue is whether people use the word 'lough' or 'lake' to describe these bodies of water in Northern Ireland. Not so: a) our usage here is not naming individual lakes; it is what collective noun is most commonly used when referring to groups of them, as we do in these category titles. b) per WP:COMMONNAME, the test is not some vague "people use"; it is "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Note: reliable sources. Hence my numeric data on reliable sources.
  2. Cherry-picked examples to support your case do not address the test of what is most commonly used. Your reliance on 2 examples is like saying that you can identify 2 American men called "John", so most American men are called "John".
  3. There is indeed an official body called the Loughs Agency. If you had taken 30 seconds to follow the link at the top of that page to http://www.loughs-agency.org/about-us/, then you have seen that there's an official body called the Loughs Agency which is responsible for 2 sea loughs, rather than the freshwater lakes in these categories.
    You could also have learnt that by reading the previous discussion to which I linked yesterday: CfD 2018 April 7#Lakes of the Republic of Ireland.
It is disappointing to have to waste time refuting the falsehoods posted by an editor who chooses not to read linked policy, not to read a linked previous discussion, and not even to read a website which they cite in evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! No need to be so aggressive. For "cherry picked examples" I think you actually mean "examples", which I've provided in contrast to you. It's no skin off my nose if the categories are renamed, but maybe you'd like to restore some credibility by finding sources that show the majority of people talke about "lakes" in Northern Ireland. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two examples picked and cited without any attempt to assess statistical significance = Cherry picked examples.
As to sources that show common usage: see the data table above.
I'm sorry that you feel your credibility is dented, but I'm sure you will recover elegantly when you read and digest the naming policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just looked at you second "example": this one in The Independent (London).
It's about sea loughs, not freshwater lakes. As with the Loughs Agency, it would have been better if you had read beyond the headline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 12 May 2018 (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:Fictional ice planets

[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: double merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I strongly suspect that this category cannot grow any larger, though I didn’t look as thoroughly as last time. One of these, Gethen, is not truly an ice planet any more than our Earth is/has been. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (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:HC Ambri-Piotta 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: rename and redirect. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: article name is HC Ambrì-Piotta Joeykai (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (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:Rayne Red Sox

[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a defunct team that existed for just one year and whose article page is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (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:Meteorological phenomena

[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: split Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomena into Category:Meteorological phenomena and Category:Meteorological concepts. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't have "meteorological phenomena" in two categories. We should either merge Category:Meteorological phenomena into Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomena, or move meteorological phenomena from the latter to the former, and make the latter just Category:Basic meteorological concepts Category:Meteorological concepts. Srleffler (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2018 (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.