Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

Scottish islands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Like the categories of
Skye should be moved to Isle of Skye per the OS but that probably won't happen and renames of "Skye" to "Isle of Skye" can happen later if possible, while the renames of "in Skye" to "on Skye" happening now and if a move of the main article (or main category) later happens we can then rename "on Skye" to "on the Isle of Skye". The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Populated places on the Isle of Skye with the main category at Commons:Category:Isle of Skye (which I renamed from simply "Skye" last year) and I will change "in" to "on" accordingly as a result of this discussion. Note that most other Scottish islands don't have separate categories for settlements though. Out of Category:Villages on Scottish islands more than half use "on" not "in" such as Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland. There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Category:Villages in Mull where "on" was agreed and more recently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 15#Category:Lewis where I suggested using "on" but there was no discussion on that and that was mainly over using "Lewis" or "Isle of Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Anyway, has
WP:SCOTLAND been notified? Scottish editors would be best placed to advise on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands. Indeed if all islands used "in" the that would be fine but if some use "in" and some use "on" (ignoring large ones and states per below) then its more confusing for navigation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Island Area
km2		 Approx
population
Lewis and Harris 2180 21000
Skye
 10000 1650
Zanzibar 2500 1300000
Longyearbyen 30000 2100
Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego 48000 133100
Jersey 118km 100000
Lolland 1243km 62600
Zealand 7031 2300000
Bornholm 227 40000
Gotland 3200 58600
Sardinia 24100 1650000
@Crouch, Swale: thanks for that notification.
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
  1. your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
  2. Your suggested criteria of "ignoring large ones and states" is also problematic, because it is fuzzy in both respects. By states, do you mean sovereign states? Or do you include non-sovereign entities, and if so which ones? There are many well-founded definitions which could be used.
    Large is also a fuzzy concept, and could be defined by area or by population. Look at the table to the right of a few examples I dug out. How do you propose to apply consistent principle across that set?
I think that before categories are renamed, this needs a lot more thought and a lot more comparison across wider sets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is Category:Churches in Lolland and Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: thanks for that reply, but it all gets a bit theological, doesn't it?
It seems that Ynys Môn isn't an island cos it's joined to a much smaller isle by a 200-year-old causeway whereas Lewis and Harris is an island because despite being almost chopped in two, its causeway is natural. Lolland is an island and its not a govt unit, but its categorised as if it was an island, and so on.
AFAICS, any attempt to devise some set of rules to replace the ad-hoccery is going to get v complex. Why put readers and editors through such a rigmarole? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anglesey is the "parent" island to Holy Island so if we took that view then Holy Island (not Anglesey) would no longer be an island (Haswell-Smith doesn't list the Isle of Skye as an island due to the Skye Bridge connecting it to the mainland) but Middle Mouse is clearly not part of Anglesey anyway. Lewis and Harris indeed is and island (and not Harris and the Isle of Lewis, despite the name) but as noted "on" can also apply to other landforms so we might have a category like "Snow on Ben Nevis" anyway (presumably only on Commons). Lolland is indeed not a govt unit, that is the Lolland Municipality (my mistake). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The setup in other countries was the best that I could find based on searches and existing category structure, as noted using "on" seems to be the long-standing setup for the Isle of Wight. As noted I'm fine with us using "in" for all islands but we have a mixture of both for Scotland which is even more confusing. Perhaps "in" v "on" also falls under
WP:ENGVAR which would allow us to have different setups for different countries but I agree that that indeed would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (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:Tea Tree oils

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT with one article. Per Tea tree oil it seems there are no other tea tree oils. Brandmeistertalk 17:54, 16 March 2019 (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:Nepalese Masculine given names

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo. All other "X masculine given names" categories in this branch use sentence case. GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (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:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire

People by country of descent and occupation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 12#People by country of descent and occupation

Category:Religion in Morocco by city

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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as redundant category layers, they both contain only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Since there are not any direct articles, this isn't aiding navigation and growth potential seems limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (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:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank

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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:PERFCAT
No conceptual obection to the parent category but we only have the main article, Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank. For the subcategory, there is also just 1 article (Alberto Bacó Bagué) and Mr. Bagué has held a large number of different rotating offices so this one doesn't seem defining. (It also appears from the PREDB article that the top official is "President" not director but that may be a translation issue.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2019 (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:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEFINING
)
The Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje is given to members of the Petrović-Njegoš dynasty and other royalty by Montenegro. Being in this family is absolutely defining which is why we already have this Category:House of Petrovic-Njegoš. The members of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (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/2019_March_16&oldid=924740946"