Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 9

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

October 9[edit]

Category:Railways of Sodor (fictional island)[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. The contents are barely mentioned in the target article, so not worth categorising in the parent. (I have, however, added The Sodor & Mainland Railway to that category.) – Fayenatic London 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two remaining articles are redirects, as a series of AFDs has determined that these fictional railways are not notable. This doesn't really have much utility, when nothing it classifies will be notable, and it's not an rcat. Hog Farm Bacon 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Guangzhou R&F F.C.[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. MER-C 18:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is only populated by a single user, via a userbox created by that same user, who has since been blocked. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Moreton Bay penal settlement[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 withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, one article in the category, there is also an eponymous article (but not in this category), not many more articles to be expected. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More populated now. Kerry (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hospitalized in White House COVID-19 outbreak[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. MER-C 18:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:CATDEFINING. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now this one I'm not so sure about deleting. Being hospitalized with COVID after White House contact is a pretty life-defining moment. Feoffer (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would people commonly and consistently be defined by this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Hospitalization with an infectious disease is a life-defining event. Anyone who dies after hospitalization will of course be defined by it, while those who survive so harrowing an encounter wind up as survivors of the outbreak. See, for example, politically-notable individuals in the Category:Survivors of infectious diseases tree. Feoffer (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I did jump the gun on this one, but let's see what everyone else has to say. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether it was a memorable event for them personally, but whether it is encyclopedically defining. It really isn't one of the key characteristics by which people are described in a biography. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DS (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No such category tree. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need to be extra cautious about revealing medical information in BLPs. While I have nbeen completely open about my own cardiac arrest, I certainly wouldn't want that to define me forever. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you are on the mend.

      Were you a public servant, when you had your cardiac arrest? If so, was your cardiac arrest a consequence of decisions made by your superior? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Trump and Christie seem to be on the mend. Bailey, on the other hand, was first descbribed as "gravely ill", and there have been zero reports of him getting better. Realistically, he seems almost certain to die, if he isn't being kept artificially alive, on life support. People reading the article on Bailey are naturally going to be curious as to whether he was the only person to end up in hospital. Geo Swan (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether people are curious is not a criterion for categorization, while WP:CATDEF is. If this is a notable topic, by all means create an article about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are not defined by hospital admissions, nor by infectious diseases - with very rare exceptions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sincere question: why does Category:Smallpox survivors qualify as WP:CATDEF for George Washington? It seems like the exact same subject. (I'm not trying to be argumentative either -- I'm not a category editor, this is my first time hearing WP:CATDEF cited, so I of course yield to your assessments of what it means and how best to apply it. Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Washington should not be in Category:Smallpox survivors. It isn't a defining characteristic. "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define (in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form) the subject as having." In fact I question whether anyone in the cat meets the catdef requirement. Picking a name at random, look at Silas Wheeler. Has anyone ever used the phrase "smallpox survivor Silas Wheeler" or "Silas Wheeler was a survivor of smallpox"? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Symptomatic in White House COVID-19 outbreak[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. MER-C 18:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:CATDEFINING. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1989 in West Berlin[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/delete. MER-C 18:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT.
Category:1989 in West Berlin contains only four pages, and it is is the only subcat of Category:Years in West Berlin.
There may be enough content to populate Category:Decades in West Berlin (tho the categories are currently thin), but there's clearly not enough for a by-year series ... and even if more can be added for 1989, there's not much pint in a series with only one page when the parent Category:1989 in Berlin is an adequate subtitute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sasanian governors of Khuzestan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Sasanian governors of Khuzestan

Category:Towns in Na h-Eileanan Siar[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. MER-C 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, C2C and C2D per Category:Outer Hebrides/Outer Hebrides. This was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Category:Towns in Na h-Eileanan Siar to Category:Towns in the Outer Hebrides – C2C and C2D per Category:Outer Hebrides/Outer Hebrides, I redirected Category:Populated places in Na h-Eileanan Siar to Category:Populated places in the Outer Hebrides. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: We have categories for towns in every other Scottish local authority except the city ones (see Category:Towns in Scotland by council area) so we ought to have this one, even though there is only one town. --86.184.106.67 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a rename not a merge so you're opposition doesn't appear appropriate, although I question if we need a category for towns in the Outer Hebrides as you say there is a category for every other council area that has any that aren't cities, Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. Note that "Outer Hebrides" is treated as the archipelago and council area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • A rename would be inappropriate, as it would change the meaning. Outer Hebrides and Na h-Eileanan Siar are not the same thing, though Wikipedia tends to get them confused. Outer Hebrides is not, and never has been, any kind of council area or other political entity; it is a loosely defined term referring to the island chain ("archipelago" as Wikipedia likes to call it, though no-one in the real world ever would) stretching from Lewis in the north to Berneray in the south. Na h-Eileanan Siar is one of the 32 local government council areas of Scotland, and covers a much wider area, including also the outlying islands and groups of St Kilda, Rona, Sula Sgeir and Rockall. It seems appropriate that we should have a category for towns in the council area, but not one for towns on an island chain within it, even though in practice both categories would have the same membership. --81.154.143.15 (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Na h-Eileanan Siar/Category:Na h-Eileanan Siar redirect to Outer Hebrides/Category:Outer Hebrides. Only Category:Sport in Na h-Eileanan Siar, Category:Rugby union in Na h-Eileanan Siar and Category:Stone circles in Na h-Eileanan Siar use "Na h-Eileanan Siar". Yes St Kilda, Rona, Sula Sgeir and Rockall are in the council area but as you say the archipelago is a loosely defined term so that's probably one of the reasons why there aren't 2 separate articles/categories. In any case "Na h-Eileanan Siar" is the Scottish Gaelic name for "Outer Hebrides" rather than a name only used for the council area. The Ordnance Survey uses "Outer Hebrides" for the archipelago and "Na h-Eileanan Siar" for the council area but since the council area is a sub topic of the archipelago its logical to use the English name. Its odd to want this one to use "Na h-Eileanan Siar" anyway since the only town is on the main island anyway while some of the categories like Category:Uninhabited islands of the Outer Hebrides do have articles (like Rockall) that aren't part of the main group. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said before, Wikipedia gets things terribly confused, but the category under discussion here is one of the few that does appear to be correct at present. Those redirects are wrong. "Na h-Eileanan Siar" is not the Gaelic name for "Outer Hebrides"; the English equivalent is "Western Isles", which used to be the name of the local authority, and is still widely used although officially no longer correct. The Ordnance Survey is not a reliable guide to naming, as its surveyors had little local knowledge. --81.154.143.15 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Western Isles" is an alternative name for the "Outer Hebrides" even though it is/was sometimes used for the entire Hebrides. If you do want to make a distinction then you should start at the top category not one of the bottom ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is not true, the terms are not equivalent. "Western Isles" was the name of the local authority area from its founding in 1975 until 1997 when it became "Na h-Eileanan Siar", although in practice you will often still hear it spoken of as (the) "Western Isles". "Outer Hebrides" has never had any well-defined meaning, and it has certainly never been a formal division of Scotland. It is a term used to attract tourists, but is rarely heard locally. It's true that the term "Western Isles" has also been used in a looser wider sense, but it is generally understood in its precise meaning. Wikipedia really ought to reflect the correct usage rather than its current state of confusion, and I agree it should apply from the top category down, but this happens to be where the issue has been raised. There seems little point in renaming this category from its currently correct form just because other categories use wrong forms. --81.154.143.15 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The terms do appear to be equivalent, souces[1][2][3][4][5] suggest all 3 terms are for the same thing, namely "Outer Hebrides" is the English name for the archipelago, "Western Isles" is an alternative English name (that is/was occasionally used to apply to the entire Hebrides" and is sometimes the name of the council area) and "Na h-Eileanan Siar" is the name of the council area in English (and the Gaelic name of both). In any case there seem to be 2 options here (and we can put this discussion on hold), if you're suggesting that the entire article (and sub articles and category tree) should go to "Na h-Eileanan Siar" then you should file a WP:RM at Talk:Outer Hebrides and follow up with nominating the category tree if successful. This has previously been proposed, see the archives of that talk page. If you're suggesting that we have separate articles (and categories) with Outer Hebrides for the main group and Na h-Eileanan Siar for the other areas to (such as St Kilda and Rockall) then you should probably also propose that at Talk:Outer Hebrides, see WP:PROSPLIT. I also doubt that that would be appropriate since as noted it does seem like they mean the same thing and the council area (the council already has an article at Comhairle nan Eilean Siar) is a sub topic of the island group so using the English name for the island group seems appropriate per WP:USENGLISH. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Na h-Eileanan Siar. Compare this to the fact for example that the OS names Isle of Lewis "Isle of Lewis/Eilean Leтdhais" showing that the 1st is the English name while the 2nd is the Gaelic name so we go with the English name, while for Jura it doesn't even mention the Gaelic name (Diùra) so there's no question there but for Eilean Mòr it only uses the Gaelic name so we don't translate it to "Big Island". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support' this one, because Outer Hebrides clearly explains that both termes are equivalent, either for the island group or the administrative division. Place Clichy (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. I guess it is not possible to ping the anon opposer. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as original proposer, unless the IP makes the proposal I suggested above this CFD is moot. If the proposal is made this CFD can be put on hold but as noted they do seem equivalents and USENGLISH seems clear anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Canadian Poets Laureate[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 into Category:Poets Laureate of places in Canada and a subcategory, Category:Canadian Parliamentary Poets Laureate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per stale discussion at speedy, it should more clearly be either excluding (option A) or including (option B) provincial and local poets laureate. In option A the provincial and local poets laureate should be purged. I have a weak preference for option A, as I expect provincial and local poets laureate to be rather trivial characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Category:Canadian Poets Laureate to Category:Canadian poets laureate – C2C: Consistency with parent category Category:Poets laureate RA0808 talkcontribs 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RA0808: most country siblings use capital letters, because it's a proper noun for each country. Why should Canada use lowercase? Is it because there are multiple (provincial?) titles in Canada? – Fayenatic London 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: That is also true. Technically there is no position called "Canadian Poet Laureate" or "Poet Laureate of Canada" (the title of Canada's national poet laureate is the Parliamentary Poet Laureate), and with the introduction of additional provincial and municipal poet laureate posts this category encompasses more than just the national poets laureate. It already includes several poets who were municipal poets laureate (i.e. Candice James was a poet laureate of Halifax, NS; Douglas Lochhead for Sackville, NB; Anne Michaels for Toronto). RA0808 talkcontribs 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, RA0808, that's good enough for me. @Johnbod: please would you reconsider your Oppose below? – Fayenatic London 08:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Most other country sub-cats use P and L. In the UK at least this is an official job title, and always PL. Likely to be controversial & should not be a speedy at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RA0808, Fayenatic london, and Johnbod: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a post called Canadian Parliamentary Poet Laureate. We should have a category for that, and I agree with the nom's proposed title: Category:Canadian Parliamentary Poets Laureate.
However, there are also several other posts in Canada whose title includes "Poet Laureate", and we should have a category for them. For example, Candice James was Poet Laureate of New Westminster, which is a capitalised title: see https://www.newwestcity.ca/services/arts-and-heritage/poet-laureate
So there are other Canadian holders of post called "Poets Laureate" ... and the Category:Canadian Poets Laureate isn't a bad name for that category. However, it might better renamed as Category:Poets Laureate of places in Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given, of course, that I was the one who started the initial speedy discussion I started off leaning toward Option B. However, reading the rationale from @BrownHairedGirl: I would also agree that Category:Poets Laureate of places in Canada would be a much less ambiguous category and it would be beneficial to spin off Parliamentary Poet Laureate officeholders to a subcat. So I would say support for Option C and adopting BrownHairedGirl's suggested name for the main category. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Burmese sport by year[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. MER-C 18:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per the convention of Category:Sports by country and year to use the adjectival form of the country name. For Myanmar, the adjective is "Burmese": see List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, and see it in use on e.g. Category:Burmese culture, Category:Burmese society, Category:Burmese awards, Category:Burmese folklore, etc.
I initially proposed this as a speedy,[6] where it was opposed[7] by @Timrollpickering:

Myanmar has two adjectives - Burmese and Myanma related to the two different names- and I don't think this one was ever sorted out properly back in the day when the country article name was settled. Switching between M and B should not be speedied

I believe that Tim's argument is mistaken. Other categories which use the adjectival form of the country consistently use "Burmese". There may be a case for using a different adjective ... but unless and until there is a consensus to rename all these categories, the sport categories should follow the current convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging. Categories all tagged, in these 24 edits.[8] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I thought "Burmese" was only used for people, but since it's widely used in the category tree right now I see no reason why these should not conform to that standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

North Macedonian companies[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 to Option A. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: rename one way or the other, per arguments in the stale speedy discussion. I do not have a preference either way. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Hugo999, FlavrSavr, Place Clichy, Oculi, and BrownHairedGirl: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a wider proposal to rename all those by-year categories to a noun format, per option B, so that the examples I gave would be renamed to Category:Companies by country by year: e.g. Category:Companies of Bolivia established in 1963, Category:Companies of Serbia established in 2002, Category:Companies of the United States established in 1783.... but the category system relies on consistency, so I strongly perfect maintaining the convention rather than creating exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a great example of what happens when we do not use contemporary country names, but try to apply current terms retroactively. This one is easy, because Macedonia and North Macedonia is just a minor name change, but Ancient Egypt (MZR Empire), Roman Egypt (Provincia Aegyptus), Ottoman Egypt (Vilayet Misr) and the Arab Republic of Egypt (Arab Jamahurriyat el-Misr) are radically different entities, named Egypt retroactively by Westerners.GreyShark (dibra) 12:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete red herring, @Greyshark09. This discussion is about using noun format vs adjective format. Please keep your quest for over-precision to discussions where it is actually relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A To match the other categories in the category tree Category:Companies by country by year. Dimadick (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option А. The current solution contradicts WP:NCMAC on two points: 1. Historical usage (pre - 2019) is "Macedonian". More than a third of the companies in the category opened and closed in the Republic of Macedonia so it's absurd to call them "North Macedonian" in any sense; 2. Adjectival usage for non-state entities didn't reach a consensus on the policy's RfC so there is a recommendation to avoid adjectival usage (except in article text). Moreover, the UN brokered Prespa Agreement gives wide allowance for the usage of "Macedonian". This is accepted UN terminology. Even after the name change, "Macedonian" is used by a majority of reliable sources. The majority of arguments I encountered for "North Macedonian" are prescriptive: they should be called "North Macedonian", as opposed to neutrally descriptive - how they are actually called, and that is "Macedonian". "North Macedonian" is not in any English language dictionary! --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Support option A cf other country categories Hugo999 (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B per guideline WP:NCMAC § Adjectival form of North Macedonia:

    Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

    The reason for which not more categories have been renamed to this format since the guideline was written is probably that nobody took care of it yet, and that some of them have been opposed. The guideline is pretty clear, respects neutrality and should probably be implemented in a larger way. Place Clichy (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Wikipedians interested in automobiles

Category:Wikipedians interested in motorcycles[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. MER-C 18:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect as duplicate category. Within Category:Wikipedians interested in transportation, it does not matter which is kept, but "motorcycling" is more appropriate within Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Laws of robotics[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. MER-C 18:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just three articles and very limited scope for growth, is this category really necessary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Populated places in ancient Palestine[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: do not rename. MER-C 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The SMALLCAT category contains just three articles, cities/villages populated during the late classic era in Byzantine Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda, which is certainly not "ancient" by general definition (ancient - typically Bronze and Iron age). Another alternative merge target is simply category:Classical Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose your proposal - category:ancient Palestine (region) doesn't exist. What about category:Classical Palestine as target?GreyShark (dibra) 12:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main article here is Palestine (region), not ancient Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Biblical cities includes cities mentioned in the Bible but located in Egypt and other regions It is not exclusive to Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of places outside Palestina is not such that we can't use it as a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has potential for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator; this has potential for expansion and needn't be limited to Byzantine times. While there is some reasoning about adding "(region)", with "ancient" it's not ambiguous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Misc painting and art collections[edit]

Category:Spanish Royal Collection[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. MER-C 19:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Spanish royal collection. Until recently, it was Royal Collection of Spain; it was moved without discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, (but "Until recently" only takes you back to 15 August, when the article was begun!) No objections. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment - whatever the outcome of these proposals, some uniformity of "Paintings in/of Foo" would be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings of the Schloss Charlottenburg[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 to Category:Paintings in Schloss Charlottenburg. I boldly moved the main article (it needed repair of the page history in any case, after an old copy-and-paste move). – Fayenatic London 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Charlottenburg Palace. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment - whatever the outcome of these proposals, some uniformity of "Paintings in/of Foo" would be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Leaving aside the question of how to refer to the palace, the use of "of" is unhelpful here as it makes it sound as if the palace is depicted in these paintings, when in fact these paintings are in the palace. Changing to "Paintings in the Schloss Charlottenburg/Charlottenburg Palace" would remove this ambiguity. As Grutness says, the "Paintings in/of Foo" categories should be standardised – and they should be standardised to "in", for this reason. Ham II (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now looked this up on Google Ngram Viewer and "Schloss Charlottenburg" is more common in English-language usage, so I support a move to Category:Paintings in the Schloss Charlottenburg. The article Charlottenburg Palace should also be moved. Ham II (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Ham, - thanks for the research. That was my first instinct rtoo. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt move to Category:Paintings in the Schloss Charlottenburg. I'm not absolutely sure that Schloss Charlottenburg should use an article in English though, so this could be Category:Paintings in Schloss Charlottenburg Place Clichy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that "the" may be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for a Google Books search for "the Schloss Charlottenburg"; there are enough instances to show that this is acceptable English usage. Admittedly that includes instances of "Schloss Charlottenburg" modifying nouns, e.g. "the Schloss Charlottenburg complex" and "the Schloss Charlottenburg park", but there is also plenty of "the Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin" and so on. Ham II (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a Scholar search returns 38 results for "the schloss charlottenburg" out of 642 results for "schloss charlottenburg" (for English-language results and last page of results), so I would say that use of "the" is not majority usage in English. Place Clichy (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A search for simply "Schloss Charlottenburg" will naturally have more results than one for "the Schloss Charlottenburg", as it'll include all 38 results in the latter for a start, as well as instances of the phrase which aren't in prose. More telling would be searches for "in Schloss Charlottenburg", "of Schloss Charlottenburg", "at Schloss Charlottenburg" and so on. However, there are 48 results for "in [...]", 33 for "of [...]" and 58 for "at [...]", so you seem to be right. Ham II (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt Rename with "in" and "Charlottenburg Palace to Category:Paintings in the Charlottenburg Palace. (If I can't have both changed, I favor a rename one part or the other.) "In" makes the scope clearer. Rightly or wrongly, Charlottenburg Palace is the name of the main article and can be changed in the correct venue with a RM. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collections of the Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'archéologie de Besançon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Collections of the Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'archéologie de Besançon

Category:Paintings of the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nancy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Paintings of the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nancy

Category:Paintings in the Musée d'Art Moderne et Contemporain de Strasbourg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Paintings in the Musée d'Art Moderne et Contemporain de Strasbourg

Category:Collection of the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris[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. MER-C 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article for the location is Musée d'Art Moderne de Paris. Until recently it was Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris; it was moved without discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They have renamed themselves recently I think. Musée d'Art Moderne de Paris is the current official name; their website has "The City of Paris Museum of modern art" (sic) in English, but I don't think we should use that. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings in the Kunsthalle Hamburg[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. MER-C 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Hamburger Kunsthalle. Until recently it was Kunsthalle Hamburg; it was moved without discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the official name (not sure it hasn't been changed at some point). Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment - whatever the outcome of these proposals, some uniformity of "Paintings in/of Foo" would be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paintings of the Galleria Sabauda[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 Category:Paintings of the Galleria Sabauda to Category:Paintings in the Galleria Sabauda. No consensus for Category:Collections of the Galleria Sabauda regarding the "in" usage. There is a clear consensus to reject the original proposal and stick to Galleria Sabauda. bibliomaniac15 05:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is Sabauda Gallery. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of Category:National museums of Italy, except some of the very best-known, use the Italian names, & I would support renaming the article instead - this is not that well known. Though I can't see the page has ever been moved, the title per the text began as "The Galleria Sabauda (Sabauda Gallery) is an art collection in Turin, Italy,..." & there have been some wierd other terms in the first line ("Savoy Gallery", "Sabaudian Gallery"). The only English-language RS source linked in the article uses "Galleria Sabauda, Turin". Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment - whatever the outcome of these proposals, some uniformity of "Paintings in/of Foo" would be a good thing. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Galleria Sabauda" is more often used in English-language sources, and the article should be moved. Also, "Paintings in" should be chosen over "Paintings of" when referring to a location, in order to avoid ambiguity. Ham II (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree changes should go to "in" not "of". Again, thanks for the research! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to avoid ambiguity use "in" here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in the case of "Paintings", but there isn't the same ambiguity with "Collections", and Collections of the Galleria Sabauda is more idiomatic than Collections in the Galleria Sabauda. Ham II (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collections of the National Gallery in Prague[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. MER-C 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article for the location is National Gallery Prague. Until this year, the article was at National Gallery in Prague; it was moved without discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support National Gallery Prague is the current name per their website - there seems to have been in change of name. The article begins: "The National Gallery Prague (Czech: Národní galerie Praha, NGP), formerly the National Gallery in Prague (Národní galerie v Praze), ...". Really, GO, you should have done this groundwork for the noms. You should have realized by now that for many of us, mere agreement with the article name is not a definitive argument. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collections of the Accademia Carrara[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Category:Collections of the Accademia Carrara

Category:Paintings in the Castello Sforzesco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Category:Paintings in the Castello Sforzesco

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_9&oldid=1073192734"