Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 29
August 29
Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Mobile Game of the Year winners
- 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. You can nominate the entire Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners tree now. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Mobile Game of the Year winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD. A good faith contribution, but D.I.C.E. Award for Mobile Game of the Year is not a "defining" awards in the way that Academy Award winners or the like are. (Fine to include this in prose / main article's list, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Post-creation addendum: I did not realize category creator had created an entire categorization scheme at Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. I don't think the D.I.C.E awards qualify as something to track with categories, although improving the list articles on each winner is great. I guess we should treat this one subcategory as a test case - if there's strong consensus behind deletion as overcategorization, I can make a follow-up nomination for the rest of the category. Alternatively, maybe D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year might possibly squeak by (I'm doubtful, but it's the most notable of the set), while stuff like Outstanding Award for Technical Achievement is deleted. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Conceptual Support/Favor Expanding The nominator is right that this doesn't pass WP:OCAWARD but if we delete the mobile game subcat, the correct action would be to upmerge to [[Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. Unless this particular category is nondefining, it probably makes sense to nominate the whole D.I.C.E. tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Conceptual support, this is an obvious case of WP:SMALLCAT but I would strongly favour nominating the whole tree at once. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Recipients of the Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms" (Ministry of Defence of the Russia)
Category:Indo-European archaeology
- 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: reverse merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Indo-European archaeology to Category:Archaeology by ethnicity
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT Essentially has all the same contents and scope (apart from Archaeology of the Romani people). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support, it is largely overlapping indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, the six articles in this category would not belong in the target, and merging would deprive Category:Indo-European history and Category:Indo-European studies of their archaeology subcat. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The category should only contain broad overview articles, but none of the six articles was a broad overview article. These are the diffs to show what I have boldly done with the six articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Feel free to find different solutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- FL has a good point about the deprivation. A reverse merge would solve this. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: tagging the target page as Reverse merge has been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Manual reverse merge, which will move the article Archaeology of the Romani people into Indo-European. It should be done manually, as the bot would not deal correctly with the parenting. – Fayenatic London 15:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support reverse merge over merge as nominated. Perhaps ultimately Category:Indo-European archaeology will become empty but until that happens it belongs under Indo-European studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support reverse merge as second choice as nom. Ultimately, based on linguistic evidence, we can count the Romani people as Indo-Europeans, so it is not wrong to merge them that way either. NLeeuw (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support reverse merge over merge as nominated. Perhaps ultimately Category:Indo-European archaeology will become empty but until that happens it belongs under Indo-European studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
Real estate websites
- 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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Chinese real estate websites to Category:Real estate websites, Category:Online financial services companies of China and Category:Real estate in China
- Propose merging Category:Indonesian real estate websites to Category:Real estate websites, Category:Indonesian websites
- Propose merging Category:South African real estate websites to Category:Real estate websites, Category:South African websites
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parents for now, until more members can be found, as each of these currently only has one member. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. In addition, the tree of Category:Real estate websites contains relatively few articles altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Merge Per WP:NARROWCAT. Breaking down this small tree would seem to hinder rather than help navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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:German Mizrahi Jews
- 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 to Category:German Jews and Category:Mizrahi Jews. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:German Mizrahi Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT currently containing a single person. Wikipedia does not have a comprehensive scheme of using the category system to subdivide "[Nationality] Mizrahi Jews" from the general non-Mizrahi "[Nationality] Jews" -- at present, the only two countries that have one of these are Israel, which has a uniquely Israel-specific reason why such specificity is actually necessary (and over 200 people in the category), and the United States, where the Category:American Mizrahi Jews category has over 700 people in it. So this would be fine if there were a lot more people who could be filed here, but it's not needed as a category of one since there's no comprehensive subcategorization scheme for this to be a part of. Microcategories of one do not assist navigation of the wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Upmerge for now to both parents Category:German Jews and Category:Mizrahi Jews, with no prejudice against re-creation, per WP:NARROWCAT. Incidentally, @Bearcat, you might be interested in the discussions currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth#Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Upmerge, double, without prejudice, per WP:SMALLCAT. gidonb (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Dual merge, at least for now, but perhaps even with prejudice against re-creation, dependent on if the Jewish community in Germany is keen on distinctions by regional descent (which I do not know). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Association football people by prefecture in Japan
- 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 This closure was discussed at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan to Category:Association football people in Japan by prefecture
- Propose renaming Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland to Category:Association footballers in Northern Ireland by county
- Propose renaming Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland to Category:Association footballers in Northern Ireland by county
More categories
|
|---|
|
- Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 20#Sportspeople second-level administrative division. The splitter should be the last thing mentioned in the category name. Qwerfjkltalk 16:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks to @Laurel Lodged for helping me out with this nomination. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support, I agree with the above. Sahaib (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Leaning tooppose. I can the grammatical logic, but there is a slight change of scope.
"Sportspeople by region in Fooland" is ambiguous about whether it is for sportspeople from that region, or alternatively sportspeople who play their sport in that region. However "Sportspeople in Fooland by region" uses the format for cats for sportspeople who play their sport in that region.
For example, I created both Category:Association footballers by county in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland, whose subcats (e.g. Category:Association footballers from County Fermanagh are very much for people from that county, regardless of where they played their sort (soccer is't huge in rural Ireland, so most of them played for English clubs). I know that only the container cat is to be renamed, but I fear an implied shift in scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Query In what way is the scope of Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland altered by moving the splitter to the end as proposed (Category:Association footballers in Northern Ireland by county)? The child category (Category:Association footballers from County Fermanagh) surely eliminates the doubt if any existed in the first place. As a container category, Fermanagh cannot contain a mix of both types. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- In en.wp biographical categories, "In Foo" does not mean the same thing as "from Foo". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Firmed up my !vote to a firm oppose. The proposed renames add no clarity, and introduce ambiguity about scope.
Category names are brief labels, not essays, and precision trumps grammar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Firmed up my !vote to a firm oppose. The proposed renames add no clarity, and introduce ambiguity about scope.
- Query In what way is the scope of Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland altered by moving the splitter to the end as proposed (Category:Association footballers in Northern Ireland by county)? The child category (Category:Association footballers from County Fermanagh) surely eliminates the doubt if any existed in the first place. As a container category, Fermanagh cannot contain a mix of both types. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Generally support, for consistency. I can't imagine that Category:People by state or territory in Australia and Category:People in Australia by state or territory would not mean the same, but I am open to exceptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Japanese association football people by prefecture et cetera, categories have from categories and (not the first one listed) are under Category:German cyclists and similar. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as formulated. The only reason I saw this was due to the tag under "People by county in West Virginia", which is awkwardly phrased but clear; the proposal would change it to "People in West Virginia by county", which is less awkward but means something else. The same problem would be created many if not most of the other nominated categories: they're presumably intended to people who are either natives or residents of specific places, but the proposed titles read as if they're giving the present location of the people, which would be absurd in many instances.
- For example, a notable person who was born in Raleigh County, West Virginia could be included under the present title no matter where his life took him—halls of Congress, Tour de France, Darkest Peru—or whether he ever returned. He wouldn't, however, be a "person in West Virginia", or a "person in Raleigh County, West Virginia". The more sensible formulation in this instance would be "West Virginians by county" or "people from West Virginia by county", either of which could include people whether they were born or raised in a county, or merely settled there at some point.
- This would probably apply to all of the other states with "by county" subcategories, and perhaps many of the national categories. I note that the original proposal applied specifically to "sportspeople" in certain groups—perhaps the proposal became overbroad in formulation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Most if not all People by county in Foo (etc.) categories are container cats for People from Bar County subcats. Shouldn't the suggested title be People from Foo by county instead, so that they directly reflect the subcategories? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with this. It's more definitive. "Cat:People from (country name) by (division name)".
- Under the alternate: "Cat:Association football people by (division name) in (country name)" then you can also file people based on where they work. i.e. an South American player living in Europe could be filed under where born, where they work, and where they are living. And if they change teams perhaps multiple places where they worked. past tense. CaribDigita (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support aligns related structure of naming and disagree that this changes the meaning of the categories. "Association football people by prefecture in Japan" is semantically no different from "Association football people in Japan by prefecture". While the actual usage and category contents may imply a local identity (or not) the current wording makes no more claim on that point that the proposed one. SFB 20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support This is more consistent and, by my reading, I don't see any potential change in scope. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- So, you want to change the scope of a hundred categories about people from places to be about people who are presently located in them, merely because the subdivisions of those places are in them and the wording is awkward? Counties, provinces, regions, governorates, cantons, towns, etc. don't move around—they're always in the places they're subdivisions of. People aren't fixtures. If you change all of these titles, then you'll have to remove thousands of articles from the categories, and keep doing it whenever the people in those categories leave one place for another, and then hundreds of new categories will need to be created to do the job of the ones being renamed through this proposal. I don't understand why people aren't seeing the difference between "people by county in foo" and "people in foo by county" P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius, I don't intend any change in scope. I can see how those names could be confusing, however. For the county categories I agree with CaribDigita's alternative above. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- That would be better, although A) I think this needs to apply to most of the categories for people who aren't on sports teams—the teams may be geographically fixed, in a sense, but people definitely aren't—not just those with state–county distinctions, but also regions/cantons/parishes/provinces/etc.; and B) "West Virginians by county" or "Alabamians by county" would be even more natural than "People from Alabama by county", although that's much less worrisome to me than the distinction between "in" and "from". P Aculeius (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius, I noticed when preparing this nomination that a few other categories use demonyms as you suggested, which seems reasonable. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- That would be better, although A) I think this needs to apply to most of the categories for people who aren't on sports teams—the teams may be geographically fixed, in a sense, but people definitely aren't—not just those with state–county distinctions, but also regions/cantons/parishes/provinces/etc.; and B) "West Virginians by county" or "Alabamians by county" would be even more natural than "People from Alabama by county", although that's much less worrisome to me than the distinction between "in" and "from". P Aculeius (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- No change in scope is intended on my end, but you may see an unintended consequence I honestly don't see. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius, I don't intend any change in scope. I can see how those names could be confusing, however. For the county categories I agree with CaribDigita's alternative above. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- So, you want to change the scope of a hundred categories about people from places to be about people who are presently located in them, merely because the subdivisions of those places are in them and the wording is awkward? Counties, provinces, regions, governorates, cantons, towns, etc. don't move around—they're always in the places they're subdivisions of. People aren't fixtures. If you change all of these titles, then you'll have to remove thousands of articles from the categories, and keep doing it whenever the people in those categories leave one place for another, and then hundreds of new categories will need to be created to do the job of the ones being renamed through this proposal. I don't understand why people aren't seeing the difference between "people by county in foo" and "people in foo by county" P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support, I am not generally a fan of consistency for consistency's sake but categories are a bit of an exception, and consistently having "by X" at the end of the category name seems good. OTOH these category names are pretty awkward. Something like "Japanese association football players by prefecture" as proposed above might be preferable although I think I'd want to get some more input from knowledgeable editors before supporting that, since it seems like it might be open to varying interpretations. -- Visviva (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The intended meaning is not e.g. 'X by municipality' but 'People by municipality', so it should be phrased like that. --TadejM my talk 12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your argument is entirely unclear. The discussion is not about X versus people, it is people in any case. The discussion is about the order of the words after people. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose all. It doesn't sound right. Instead, I suggest using Fooyan footballers by division, Fooyan football people by division, Fooyan soccer players by division, and the like. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as formulated. Agree fully with User:P Aculeius. I also agree that the current naming convention is awkward; it should be "People from country by county/province/state". -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: having put in this much effort, are you willing to support an alternative which may gain consensus? – Fayenatic London 08:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, yes, of course. In fact I was thinking, if this gets closed, of renominating it using the demonym alternative. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you have the opportunity to achieve that here without the effort of re-tagging all the categories. – Fayenatic London 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're getting at. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be waiting for this to be closed, after which an admin would have to list all the categories for a bot to un-tag them; and later you would have to tag them all again for a revised proposal using demonyms. Surely it would be more efficient to agree a compromise here? If you spell out an Alt-1 proposal with a few examples, you may gain a consensus. – Fayenatic London 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, okay. Could you help me out with the demonyms? I've managed to do most of them automatically. The revised list is at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/47. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose any and all attempts to use demonyms. It is better for the noms to fail than to introduce demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, okay. Could you help me out with the demonyms? I've managed to do most of them automatically. The revised list is at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/47. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to be waiting for this to be closed, after which an admin would have to list all the categories for a bot to un-tag them; and later you would have to tag them all again for a revised proposal using demonyms. Surely it would be more efficient to agree a compromise here? If you spell out an Alt-1 proposal with a few examples, you may gain a consensus. – Fayenatic London 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're getting at. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you have the opportunity to achieve that here without the effort of re-tagging all the categories. – Fayenatic London 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, yes, of course. In fact I was thinking, if this gets closed, of renominating it using the demonym alternative. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged, do you have a basis for your dislike of demonyms? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Demonyms are a fraud. They pretend to be one thing but are something else. In wiki land, they are put forward as meaning "a citizen of the sovereign state of Foo". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not true. This happens when it means "is usually resident in state Foo" or "spent his career working in Foo" or "is an ethnic Fooian". A "French Polynesian" is not a citizen of a sovereign state; he is a resident of an overseas territory (AKA colony) and possibly also a citizen of Republic Of France. In the case of a man born in 1950 on the island of Ireland, he may self-identify as "British" (if born in Belfast for example) or as "Irish" (if born in Dublin for example). It's also complicated by the fact that some people born in Belfast self-identify as "Irish". And then what to call people born before the establishment of the Republic of Ireland? In reality there are often two tree structures: by country and by nationality. Wiki should stop pretending that one comprehends the other. In some cases it does, in other cases it does not. The use of the demonyn permits this fraud to flourish - it is a grammatical fudge and should be stamped out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl: please excuse the delay! I have completed the alternative list (using demonyms) at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/47. If you wish to propose this, I suggest pasting a copy on the talk page of this CFD log, or perhaps first relisting again. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, it's no problem, really I have should have done it myself. I would prefer to close this and start a new nomination to make the consensus clearer, but you're opposed to that, so I think relisting and providing a collapsed list of the alt nomination would be best. Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alt proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)- Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan to Category:Japanese association football people by prefecture
- Category:Association footballers by county in Northern Ireland to Category:Association footballers from Northern Ireland by county (per WP:IRE-CATS)
- Category:Association footballers by county in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers by county (per Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers)
- Category:Cyclists by province in Belgium to Category:Belgian cyclists by province
- ... full list on the talk page.
- Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging participants @CaribDigita, @Gidonb, @Kaffet i halsen, @Marcocapelle, @P199, @Visviva, @Sillyfolkboy, @RevelationDirect, @P Aculeius, @Paul_012, @Sahaib.
- Apologies if I missed anyone. Qwerfjkltalk 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- [responding to ping] This is almost exactly my proposal so obviously I am very happy with this! Support! gidonb (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support this proposal. While I don't think there's any problem with using demonyms with the names of U.S. states, this formulation still addresses the chief issue with the original proposal, in that the category names will mean what people expect them to mean, and define a logical scope: people from X rather than in X. There might be rare instances when the latter formulation makes sense, but readers will nearly always be looking for people from X. P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- The list follows the usage in parent categories, e.g. Category:American people, but demonyms are not used for any categories for U.S. states, e.g. the parents use the form Category:People from Florida rather than Category:Florida people / Category:Floridian people / Category:Floridians. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm concerned about, chiefly. While I think that "West Virginians" is as clear and more concise than "people from West Virginia", it has approximately the same scope. The names of "People from U.S. states" categories can always be discussed in future, but this proposal was originally about "athletes in place by subdivision of place", and for reasons not clear to me included "people in U.S. states...", as well as general categories following the same formulation everywhere else. It makes no sense at all to use general categories for people in rather than people from, since people are movable, and readers will almost invariably want to find people who either originate from or reside in a particular place, irrespective of their current location. For purposes of this discussion, "Fooians" and "People from Foo" are near equivalents; "People in Foo" is the problem, because it's obviously meant to be the same as "People from Foo", but isn't. P Aculeius (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- The list follows the usage in parent categories, e.g. Category:American people, but demonyms are not used for any categories for U.S. states, e.g. the parents use the form Category:People from Florida rather than Category:Florida people / Category:Floridian people / Category:Floridians. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- (Thanks for the ping but) oppose. I thought the formulation most people (myself included) noted their preference for above was Association football people from Japan by prefecture, etc. Why not have that as the alt proposal? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note Fayentic's comment above. (Posted after yours.)
- it follows parent date that use demonyms such as Category:German cyclists. Qwerfjkltalk 21:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support alt as much as I support the original nomination. The splitter is at the end, this was what the discussion was about. A discussion about fooian people versus people from foo can be done some other time. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- As BHG described above, the change can produce ambiguity. The alt proposal aims to remedy that. Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- It was not clear to me how it was ambiguous but if it is clear for other editors then just go for it. I am not opposing either, that is what matters most, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- As BHG described above, the change can produce ambiguity. The alt proposal aims to remedy that. Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- In case my replies above are unclear, what I'm supporting is any solution that uses either "people from Foo" or "Fooians", as opposed to "People in Foo", which in my opinion is an unhelpful formulation for most categories, because people are mobile, and readers will nearly always be looking for people who come from or reside in a place, irrespective of where they may be at a particular time. As Marcocapelle says, "Fooians" versus "People from Foo" can be discussed some other time, and (I hope) perhaps in discussions more focused on a smaller selection of categories—this started with a very specific and focused number, and somehow expanded to encompass the rest of the universe. If it hadn't somehow engulfed all categories for people from U.S. states, I wouldn't even have been aware of the discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose prefer the current system with the splitter in the middle and country at the end, rather than the beginning, as it seems more natural. Countries being at the end would also be more helpful when searching for categories, "People/Sportpeople/footballers by county/stage/region" seems easier to search for to me, than by having demonyms or having countries in the middle. Happily888 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say the splitter s the middle is more "natural". Why? Most categories have the splitter at the end, which makes sense logically.
- You say categories at the end would be more helpful when searching. That seems dubious to me.
- And again you bring up this searching argument, wwhich still seems dubious. I doubt people will struggle to search the categories whichever way they are ordered.
- After all, even though in the nomination all the categories are listed together, they are in fact for the most part totally separate. Nobody is going to have to run their eyes down this whole list, in all likelihood there will only be a few dozen at best that they'll have to contend with. Qwerfjkltalk 21:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Happily888 Pinging you for the comment above. Qwerfjkltalk 21:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Support per my post on 18 June. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Politicians from New South Wales
- 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 delete under WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Politicians from New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Created in error. We already have Category:New South Wales politicians. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G7. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.