Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19 September 21 >

September 20[edit]

Category:Lightning (women's cricket) cricketers[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same logic as at Talk:List of Lightning women's cricketers#Requested move 21 July 2022, where we removed (women's cricket) from the related list article. The proposed name is much more sensible, but there are men's cricket teams nicknamed Lightning, and so women's is needed to disambiguate Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added Category:Sunrisers (women's cricket) cricketers to this nomination, for the same reasons as above (there is also a men's team Sunrisers Hyderabad, so women's is needed in the category title). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving, a couple points however: 1) the style for categories such as in Category:Players in English domestic women's cricket by team and Category:Players in Australian domestic women's cricket by team seems to be "women" cricketers rather than "women's" cricketers, and 2) potentially Category:Loughborough Lightning (women's cricket) cricketers could be added as well, perhaps just to Category:Loughborough Lightning cricketers. Mpk662 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"women cricketers" is fine by me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the parent is Category:Lightning (women's cricket) and convention is to follow this in subcats (WP:C2C), despite some clunkiness. Oculi (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we choose to make it clunky when it could be less clunky- seems illogical to me? Also, it's a subcategory of Category:Players in English domestic women's cricket by team, which uses the names "women cricketers", so C2C doesn't apply- there are 2 parent categories with different naming conventions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more straightforward to follow the parent category, a practice much wider than cricket categories. The 'local' category takes precedence in C2C. Oculi (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 2 parent categories, with different conventions. We shouldn't therefore automatically default to one of those conventions without a discussion. Speedy criteria are for obvious cases, this is not an obvious case, as it has multiple parent categories. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do exactly follow the convention in the more specific category at speedy, namely Category:Lightning (women's cricket), which follows the article Lightning (women's cricket). There are countless examples of this. Nearly all categories have multiple parents. Oculi (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's textbook WP:IAR. Sure we do have guidelines and conventions on Wikipedia and they are very good, but it is a founding principle that they should be put aside when they only come up with a syntaxic absurdity such as this. Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to women cricketers Per Mpk662's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, much better name. Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a third category to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - To clarify as it has now been added to the discussion, I was proposing a move to Category:Loughborough Lightning cricketers without the "women" as listed, as there are no other cricket teams that it could be confused with, unlike with Lightning and Sunrisers. Mpk662 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this, no need for women's in the Loughborough Lightning case, as they don't have a men's cricket team. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2022 (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:Ulster unionism[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ulster is made up of nine counties: six of these constitute Northern Ireland the remaining three are in the Republic of Ireland. Privybst (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see your point, but there was Ulster Unionism in all nine counties. Take a look at North Monaghan, for instance, before partition the Unionists got about a third of the votes there. Also, the COMMONNAME in reliable sources is Ulster Unionism — check Jstor, Google Scholar, and Google Books, thousands of hits, the latest being for Presbyterians, Ulster Unionism and the Establishment of Northern Ireland, 1905-47 (Queen's University Belfast, 2021), which covers all nine counties. Moonraker (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:Unionism in Ulster. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this proposal as well. Privybst (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The present name is the normal term. Certainly NI is only 6 or the 9 counties of Ulster, but in practice today Ulster and Northern Ireland are politically synonyms. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both Unionism in Northern Ireland and Unionism in Ulster. Ulster unionism is the main article, and how unionists are universally referred to. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scolaire The article Ulster unionism does not exist, as far as I can see. This is just a redirect to Unionism in Ireland which is clearly different and much broader. Privybst (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never noticed that. Weird! My Oppose stands, since "Ulster Unionism" appears, bolded, in the first paragraph of that article, because it is how unionists in Ulster are referred to. Scolaire (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, "Ulster unionism" is the common name, as demonstrated above. Warofdreams talk 20:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, rationale is exactly why it shouldn’t be renamed; only 2/3 of the counties sit within NI. If this category were renamed to "Category:Unionism in Northern Ireland", it would discredit the other third of the counties constituting Ulster. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (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.

Academic personnel 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the arguments are exactly the same as in the discussion below, but the outcome of the discussion may be different per WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per discussion below, it would be an improvement to have a neutral, homogeneous name for these categories that would cover all local situations. Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. --Privybst (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the further intention is to rename all subcats, it might be as well to add a few such as Yale, Harvard, UCLA, lest the plan meet opposition further down the tree. Oculi (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid confusion: Yale, Harvard, UCLA category pages were tagged to get more input to the discussion, but they cannot be renamed in this discussion, because it would leave inconsistency at the lower category level. The lower level may be nominated after this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This usage of faculty may be normal in US (but I do not know). If so, there is no reason why this should not be kept. We frequently allow subcats to use local terminology, despite it being at odds with their parent. I have voted for a change for other countries, but am staying neutral on this one, as I am not an American. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks as though it might be agreed! If so can we agree on this format - Foo University academic personnel - with the name of the university first? Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Essentially all non-UK universities have categories named "University X faculty" for their faculty members. This is exactly an ENGVAR thing. In American English, "faculty" and "professors" are synonymous. "Academic personnel" is much vaguer and would also include graders and teaching assistants (typically students supported through a job grading coursework) as well as postdoctoral researchers. We want our category names to be specific, because those other positions are not defining and should not be included in the category. "University X faculty" is the correct, idiomatic, and more specific description of the people in the category. Additionally, we should not handle three universities out of all of the ones in the world differently than all others. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought this would be just a discussion about terminology, but now it appears that it is a discussion about content too. Surely we do not want to restrict these categories to professors only, don't we? At least in European context that would not make much sense. All people who are notable as an academic researcher/educator should be in these categories. While many of them undoubtedly will be professors, and none of them will be students (who aren't academics anyway), the title should not be a requirement. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is precisely indeed why a neutral wide-encompassing name is desirable for the category. Sometimes vague is good. The boundary between professors and non-tenured teachers is very different from one university to the next even withing the same country, thanks to the richness of university culture. The same can be said for the boundary between teaching and research positions. They can't be stable basis for Wikipedia categorization. We should focus on the substance, not the title. Place Clichy (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in the ground of uniformity. If academics who are not professors are notable enough they should be included, but my impression is that in the USA professors are more numerous than in some other places. Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- This is an ENGVAR issue. We should not require British usage to be applied to American subjects or vice versa. It is quite normal for the children-cat of an international parent-cat to have a variety of names, reflecting local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - in cfd discussions over the years I have formed the impression that US editors (not represented here other than David Eppstein) are very content with 'XXX faculty'. Unless this proposal is endorsed by a consensus of US editors, Academic personnel is too flimsy an article to underpin an extensive category tree. Oculi (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 20 September 2022 (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.

People from the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#People from the Ottoman Empire

Years in Alberta before 1905[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Years in Alberta before 1905

Category:Songs in memory of Marvin Gaye[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For good housekeeping following previous discussions which resulted in moving members manually and deleting the parent cat Songs in memory of deceased persons and where both categories existed, Songs in cMemory of XXX were merged with the Category, Songs about XXX. As stated in previous nomination mentioned above, whether a song was written before or after the death of the subject seems such an artificial distinction. Richhoncho (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2022 (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:Hungarian-speaking territories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:Hungarian-speaking territories

Category:French architecture outside France[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:French architecture outside France

Category:Dancers with a physical disability[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:Dancers with a physical disability

Category:Bebop vibraphonists[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.
Nominator's rationale: Should've been included with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Category:Jazz vibraphonists by genre but were not included as subcats under vibraphonists by genre at the time. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2022 (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:Classical vibraphonists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:Classical vibraphonists

Category:Magic: The Gathering game concepts[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: manual delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cantrip, Card advantage and Proxy card aren't specific to Magic: The Gathering so don't belong here. That leaves only three entries, which should be upmerged to the parent. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and selective upmerge as per Pppery's assessment, the MTG-specific articles should be upmerged, and the generic card game terminology should not be upmerged. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and support some of Joseph2302's suggestions. (Those can be done at any time through normal editing.) Jontesta (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2022 (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:Y: The Last Man[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:Y: The Last Man

Populated places by raion in Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Populated places by raion in Ukraine

Category:Vibraphonists by nationality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Category:Vibraphonists by nationality

Final Four basketball players 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
77 more categories
Nominator's rationale: Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_18#Category:Basketball_players_at_the_2022_NCAA_Division_I_Men's_Final_Four.– Fayenatic London 15:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per recently established consensus.--User:Namiba 18:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per the recent linked CFD which has clear consensus to delete these types of categories. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous consensus. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2022 (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/2022_September_20&oldid=1135874370"