Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 28

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kapp Putsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - seems there was a little bit of undercategorisation. Now contains three articles and subcategory. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It now has three articles and a 41-member subcat. Unless the other two articles can be downmerged to the sub-cat, with Category:Kapp Putsch becoming its main article, we are going to have to keep it, despite being small. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We seem to have several articles connected to this failed coup. The category is reasonably populated. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2017 (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.

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. @DarthBotto and Marcocapelle: I suggest relisting as "option A or option B", the latter being Marcocapelle's suggestion. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dota 2 to Category:Dota

Nominator's rationale: This category encompasses pages and subcategories beyond the scope of Dota 2, as Dota is a franchise that has teams, players and events preceding and (are assumed to be) succeeding it. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Prisencolin: appears to have been the one to add the more generic Dota subcategories to this. Previously to that, it was seems to have been only content directly related to Dota 2. No real problem with renaming it myself, but if done, it needs population with other Dota articles. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good start would be to add the original Dota to the category. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Against I don't even see any Dota 1 specific stuff here (unless it's in the subcategories), so I don't see the need to move the category either. That being said, if this did have more than a few Dota 1 articles included, I'd support the move to just Category:Dota. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, the subcategories may be renamed in opposite direction, from Category:Dota players and Category:Dota teams to Category:Dota 2 players and Category:Dota 2 teams. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (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.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category: Intelligent software assistants to Category: Virtual Assistants

Nominator's rationale: as this is the most common name (today) for this category of items, e.g. Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri. Keizers (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2017 (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.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:CollegeHumor people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 08:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Qualities of thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete as too subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – thought has qualities (aspects), and all the entries fit, showing that this "subjective" category works. Nominator has failed to support his claim in any way. The Transhumanist 11:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:OR I suspect. One of the 4 members is Frequency, which begins with a note: "This article is about the rates of waves, oscillations, and vibrations." So nothing relevant to thought. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2017 (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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Egyptian Muslim scholars to Category:Egyptian Muslim scholars of Islam
• Propose renaming Category:Syrian Muslim scholars to Category:Syrian Muslim scholars of Islam

Nominator's rationale: rename by adding of Islam, to match with format of parent Category:Muslim scholars of Islam and to prevent that this Egyptian Muslim chemists and Egyptian Muslim statisticians will be added to this category like already happened in Category:Muslim scholars. A speedy nomination was declined. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2017 (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.

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 according to option B. – Fayenatic London 23:53, 27 May 2017‎

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A, for Eurasian region reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicbyaccident What on earth does that have to do with it? AusLondonder (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A B – the subcats should all have followed the lead of Category:Organizations based in Israel, which has been there since 2006. Oculi (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi You seem to contradict yourself. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have un-contradicted myself. Oculi (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case 'organizations' is perfectly good UK English; see Oxford English. Oculi (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A Per region, and per the fact that Israel was once the British Mandate for Palestine. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser Right so British English for the United States because of British America? AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was only less than 70 years ago. And there was no evolvement of English in Israel, since it is not an English-speaking country. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, seven decades i.e. very few people who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine now live in Israel. As a matter of fact, as proven below, English language use in Israel is overwhelmingly American. AusLondonder (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option A usual Wikipedia rule of thumb for non-English speaking countries is US English for the New World and UK English for the Old World. Grutness...wha? 13:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Support Option B iff some reliable source can show that US spelling is in de facto use in Israel - if not, then Option A is preferable. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness I sincerely hope you're kidding. AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. Unless a country has a preference for a particular spelling, we've had to use some sort of guide for non-English speaking countries, and that has been it for at least the last 12 years. If, as Nyttend ands you suggest, however, US spelling is in de facto use in Israel, then Option B should be used. Normally I bow to Od Mishehu in matters related to Israeli culture, but in this case the evidence suggests otherwise. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option B. Israel is hardly a non-English-speaking country; English is extremely commonly used in the country, even appearing on road signs, postage stamps, etc., and as such we can follow its usage. According to Languages of Israel#English, English is required as a second language in schools and universities, for both Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking students. Despite the country's history of British mandatory rule, written English in Israel today uses primarily American spelling and grammar. As a result, we should apply TIES here and follow what Israelis generally do. Yes, use en:gb for most of the Old World, but exceptions exist (see Liberian English, for example), and this is one of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That statement from Languages of Israel#English is not sourced. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option B per Nyttend. English is quite commonly and directly used in Israel — even if it's not technically an official language per se, it is a common and widely used second language in which Israelis are required to have at least some degree of education and/or proficiency, and in which Israel even has its own local media outlets (Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, etc.) So Israel has its own direct ties to the English language, and we should accordingly follow Israel's own English usage conventions rather than lumping it into the "New World vs. Old World" conventions for countries that don't have their own natural English language ties — and Israel does generally follow US, rather than UK, English spelling conventions. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Option B On policy, there shouldn't even be a dispute here. Per WP:RETAIN we should follow the parent cat, created in 2006, as Category:Organizations based in Israel. Also per the regional parent cat which is located at Category:Organizations based in Asia by country and Category:Organizations based in Asia. Trying to lump countries together using 16th century European explorer terminology such as "Old World" vs "New World" is absurd and contrary to reality. Jamaica, Bermuda, Belize etc are in the "New World" but generally use British English. Canada uses a mix of British and American. The Philippines, located in the "Old World" uses American English. WP:TIES arguably applies to Israel, as English is a de facto secondary official language. Perhaps we should tell all of the following to change their name ASAP because we've designated them "Old World": Israeli Labor Party, Israel Defense Forces, Molad: The Center for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy, ITIM: The Jewish-Life Information Center, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, World Zionist Organization. AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course "old world vs new world" is absurd in cases where English is a primary language (e.g., Jamaica, Belize, Bermuda) and where there has been occupation/colonisation by an English-speaking country (e.g., Philippines). That's why that rule of thumb not used there. As I said, it's a rule for non English-speaking countries. If there is evidence that Israel primarily uses US spellings, then US English should be used. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I suspect the close relationship between Israel and USA mat support option B, but I do not know, having not investigated. I would normally have voted the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B The Jerusalem Post seems to use "organization", e.g. here. I already suspected that in view of close US-Israel ties, Israel would predominantly use US speling, but looking at the usage in English-language Israeli media seems to confirm this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2017 (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.