Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 30 April 1 >

March 31

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: no consensus without prejudice against a fresh A/B nomination on a short term. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 14 April 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
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment, reactions on the later arguments of
    Oculi, Peterkingiron, and Necrothesp: pinging earlier discussants. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Deskford's explanation of the complexities of defining what is a Scottish island complements my broader concerns, and reinforces my decision to oppose. As far as I can see, any attempt to make a clear and consistent definition is doomed to fail, so any decision on what places should use the "on" format will be subjective and arbitrary. Such arbitrary choices are unhelpful to both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case and we don't get consensus to use "on" then I'd suggest maybe using CFD to rename the others to "in". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: Yes, that's be the route to go. In situations like this, I do an option A/Option B nomination so that the one discussion can choose which convention to adopt. It's a pity that was not done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: Would it be worth listing the others in a "collapsed" listing (that is to say list all the "on" the Isle of Wight and on the Isle of Mull etc) so that each category tree that uses "on" can be considered to renaming to "in" (for if the above ones aren't renamed to "on"). I didn't think of listing option A/B/C etc since I didn't think this would be controversial/complicated but it has turned out to be. I indeed do think its a disservice to both readers and editors to have some Scottish islands using "on" and some using "in" for no good reason, and consistency is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale: Yes, we agree on consistency. But how to get there?
Now that this one has been open for two weeks I would be v wary of the procedural viability of turning it into an A/B choice this late in the game. If a major new option was added now, it would be be hard for a closer to weigh the discussion.
So I think we are where we are. If this is closed as "keep", then a followup option is needed for the existing "on" categories. If it's closed as no consensus, then an Option A/Option B nomination in a few months would be the next step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, personally I wouldn't suggest a "few months" wait is expected (since an A/B nomination would involve more than just these and thus a different proposal) but I'd do so anyway since it would probably be better to let the dust settle a bit anyway especially since one option would still be "use on for all). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it makes a difference to me whether the name of the island is also that of some legal entity (such as many of the examples being discussed above: Sardinia, Tasmania) especially when our article encompasses both senses of the topic. Because many of those legal entities encompass more than the single main island (see, e.g., Category:Islands of Sardinia and Category:Islands of Tasmania), and any settlements "on" those islands are also "in" Sardinia or Tasmania but clearly not "on" Sardinia or Tasmania. Note: sometimes we do distinguish between the two senses: Great Britain an island, not including the islands we're discussing and Kingdom of Great Britain which includes them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 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.

Discovery, Inc.

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. It's empty, so there is nothing to merge ... but any contents would have been merged if they existed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, all of Scripps Networks Interactive (SNI) channels in the category are owned by Discovery, Inc. Category:Discovery Networks. For reference, Discovery acquired SNI on March 6, 2018. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:52, 31 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:Buildings and structures in Kalocsa

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: upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category and also only few articles in parent Category:Kalocsa. For reference, Kalocsa is a town in Hungary of 16.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 31 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.

Proponents of Christian feminism

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: selectively merge. Pinging the nominator @Marcocapelle to implement the selective merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per
WP:EGRS, we only create intersections with religion if it is a topic in its own right. In case of feminism, Christian feminism is a topic in its own right, but not e.g. Protestant feminism or Roman Catholic feminism. So this is for proponents of Christian feminism and feminists who just happen to be Christian do not qualify. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_24#Category:Christian_feminists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 31 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.

Comment: after closure of this discussion it appeared that Mormon feminism exists; hence merging Category:Mormon feminists should require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in Romania 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant container category with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in the relevant trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 31 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:National Heroes of Azerbaijan

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: withdrawn by nominator after new evidence was presented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
The National Hero of Azerbaijan name and description certainly sound defining. In practice, the overwhelming majority of people in this category were Azerbaijani soldiers killed in action during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. These things are absolutely defining which is why we have both Category:Azerbaijani military personnel of the Nagorno-Karabakh War and Category:Azerbaijani military personnel killed in action. Receiving an award that duplicates those categories is not defining, however. The contents of the category are already listified here in a separate article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were all Azerbaijani military personnel killed in the Nagorno-Karabakh War awarded this honour? Has nobody else been awarded this honour? If the answer to both questions is no, then we should keep this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The online sources in English are a POV nightmare but to answer your questions: 1) Yes, I beleive the award was automatic for those killed in this war. 2) No, there are also handful of Azerbaijani civilians killed in the war and soldiers who survived it who also received the award who are under the parent category
WP:DEFINING.) RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The article says that more than 1,000 Azerbaijani soldiers were killed in the war (although other sections appear to suggest far more were)! Are you saying they all received this award (because that's not what the article suggests and it should be rewritten with evidence if it's true)? If not, I think it's hard to argue that a country's highest honour is not defining! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken. About a 5th of those killed received the award. Sorry for the error. I would still find it non-defining except...RevelationDirect (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by Nominator The Heydar Aliyev Order is listed as the top award of Azerbaijan in Wikipedia but the Azerbaijani government makes a distinction between orders and medals and sees this one as the top of the second group (here, page 22. I always defer to country's top civilian/military awards and here would do the same for the top order/medal. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:15, 4 April 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:Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame inductees

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) 07:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEFINING
)
The Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame is a city government supported hall of fame to promote sports in Ottawa and recognized both athletes from Ottawa who perform elsewhere and athletes from elsewhere who play in local teams (or both obviously). The museum has moved around to different civic buildings but I think this is the current display. I clicked through quite a few articles and none of the ones I read even mentioned this award so it doesn't seem defiing. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This looks like a NN award. I would have wanted a list, but gather that we have one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 6 April 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_31&oldid=908457633"