Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30
September 1 >

August 31

[edit]

Category:Ihor Gereta

[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 16:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to justify an eponymous category (two articles including the main one). Pichpich (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2024 (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 League (baseball)

[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 16:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main category (Category:National League (baseball)) was disambiguated due to there being a number of other National Leagues. However, I don't see the need to disambiguate statistical categories since they are a) in the main category and b) specific to baseball. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, @Muboshgu:, your opinion on this? I'm against disambiguating only the subcategories. There is only one other category called Category:National League (English football) which is a small English league and not as well known as the baseball National League. Since those subcats are disambiguated, I don't think these should be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. I really don't know enough to have an opinion about the sporting aspect, but what you've written seems reasonable. I am not aware of a reason we shouldn't do it. (You know so much more about sports, that I'm happy to defer to your judgment) Mason (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping @Marcocapelle here too. I just think that one is disambiguated (and I was on the fence about the main category too since there are only two categories named "National League" and one is already dabbed) so its unnecessary to do the primary one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – American bias. The English National League is far more well known in Britain. (I've never heard of the baseball National League.) Neither is the primary topic, therefore disambiguating both is helpful to readers. There is no benefit to not disambiguating. Those stats may refer to baseball if you know baseball, but to anyone else they could mean anything. Disambiguation provides clarity. It's standard practice to disambiguate subcategories the same way as the parent category. Mclay1 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mclay1, sorry but how is it American bias when its the truth? The English Premier League is the best known British league, not the English National League; its certainly not even one of the top football leagues in the world. On the other hand, the baseball National League is one of the top two Baseball leagues in the world, the other one being its sister league, the American League.
    There is also nothing to clarify here; its clearly these aren't football-related statistics and I would also note that the main category is already disambiguated. I really don't see the problem here. For what its worth, given that one is already disambiguated there is no point in dabbing the primary one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, hate to say it because I do think the baseball league, as half of the top baseball organization in the world, is the clear primary topic, exceedingly more significant than a minor fifth-tier league. But "saves" and "wins" are indeed statistical categories in association football, even if they're less frequently discussed stats. So leaving them disambiguated makes them, well, unambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oknazevad, I'd agree if there isn't an equivalent category for football statistics for Category:National League (English football) and even if there was (as you say, they are not as well discussed and this is fifth-tier league), those one would like be dabbed as the others are.
    Also, my only quabble here is that these was speedied rather than discussed beforehand because the original move of the article name was contentious. I've informed the higher-ups in WP:Baseball so we can have more opinions. I definitely want a consensus here about whether all or none of the categories in Category:National League (baseball) should be dabbed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's American bias because a significant portion of the world outside of America has no knowledge of American baseball leagues. Football is an international sport, whereas baseball is primarily played in North America, so of course an American league is going to be one of the top baseball leagues in the world; that doesn't mean anything. It's worth noting that the football National League has had increased exposure internationally in recent years because of Welcome to Wrexham.
    It's not at all clear what the statistics refer to unless you look into it. "Wins" and "saves" are generic sporting terms and could easily be mistaken to refer to football by someone unfamiliar with the topic. Disambiguation provides immediate clarity. The fact that the subcategories are in a baseball category doesn't entirely prevent confusion. The parent category being disambiguated is an argument for disambiguating the subcategories per standard practice. It would also be completely against standard practice to not disambiguate the parent category when the corresponding article is disambiguated.
    I didn't speedy the other subcategories because I figured those ones were unambiguous, but I would support those being disambiguated too for consistency. All subcategories of Category:National League (English football) are disambiguated despite some being unambiguous. Mclay1 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mclay1, sorry but you just cannot compare a minor British football league nobody but fanatic football fans has heard of to one of the top-two baseball leagues in the world just because you come from a country where baseball isn't a sport. Even a casual fan in Japan or the Caribbean countries have heard of the NL.
    And again, all the subcategories of the football category are disambiguated because its not the primary topic and nobody will be confusing baseball wins and saves with the minor English football league cats since those don't have a category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this isn't me dissing association football. This is me trying to explain that "football is more popular than baseball" is not a good reason to assume that the English NL football league is better known to people than the baseball NL league. Its not because it just isn't. This is the English Premier League, in other words. I'm against dabbed all NL baseball categories because you think two may be ambiguous even though they really aren't. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could argue back and forth forever about which one more people have heard of. That's why the articles are disambiguated, and we shouldn't relitigate that discussion here. Since that is the situation, the categories need to follow the articles. Mclay1 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For consistency's sake within English Wikipedia, the National League article is already disambiguated between the American baseball league, English football division, and Swiss ice hockey tier. Only if National League (baseball) were moved to National League would I support the category move (which as an almost daily baseball watcher, I feel I'd be too biased to comment on that theoretical discussion). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spesh531, I should clarify this is a move BACK, not a move. Just FYI. These two were speedied without any discussion and the purpose here is to move it back to as they were before which is without the disambiguation because there are only two categories with the name "National League" and the baseball one is clearly the primary one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spesh531, any further comment? Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sounds like a good idea, but Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories for articles bullet #5 states When a topic requires disambiguation, any category eponymously named for that topic should include the same form of disambiguation, even if no other articles are likely to have an eponymous category. I know the proposed are not WP:EPON cats, but looking at Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (country); every subcat, regardless of its specificity to the state or country, is dab'd. If I am reading that wrong or if there is a contradictory guideline, please ping me. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BX, I think you are. For one, both Georgie the state and George the country are primary topics so its not an apt comparison compared to this one where the epon category is dabbed but the rest should not be due to there being no ambiguty. Second, not every subcat is dabbed in those examples. If you go in further, the cities aren't dabbed, people from cities aren't dabbed, and so on.
    So no, there is no requirement for every category to be dabbed just because the epon one is. In this case, I don't see the need to because the baseball National League is by far the primary topic which is not the case with the Georgia example. Hope this helps. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying this is the primary topic, which I also believed it to be, but the move discussion said otherwise. Unfortunately, that is what we should go by. Re: cities, they follow MOS:USPLACE, so it's not apples to apples, per se. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BX - just a heads up, please ping me when responding, thanks. Respectfully, you brought up the cities example, not me and I gave you an example as you asked. Only the main category has to match, not the subcategories. But there is no requirement for all subcats to be dabbed in cases where the topic is primary. In this case, there are only two categories named "National League" and one is clearly primary.
    The article move is related only to the epon category which was moved. It does not matter with regards to the baseball-specific subcategories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: What do you mean both Georgias are primary topics? Neither are the primary topic, which is why they are both disambiguated and Georgien is a dab page. National League is the same situation. As I've said above, as a general rule, we do disambiguate subcategories to match the parent (e.g. Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state)). They would have to be really unambiguous to not do that, and that is just not the case here. Mclay1 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mclay1, by "primary" meaning they are both well-known as being Georgia. And again, categories and articles are different. The main article for baseball was dabbed because its generic name but its still considered the top of the list in terms of notability (as noted in the RM discussion here). However, there are only TWO NL categories and, in this, there is no requirement for the much better known's subcats to dabbed especially when there is no corresponding, similarly named category and nothing to actually make unambigous.
    This was not a move you should have done via speedy, especially when you don't seem to understand what "primary" means. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't seem to understand what primary means. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Categories follow the lead of the articles. It's just not relevant whether or not there are similarly named subcategories; that's not what makes the names ambiguous. The point is that, in isolation, the meanings of the category names are not obvious enough to someone without knowledge of baseball stats (i.e. the majority of people in the world) and, rightly or wrongly, they could be confused with football. They might not be confusing to you, but if other people disagree, disambiguating is the easiest solution and is the default position unless there is a reason not to. Speedying moves like that is common practice. See WP:C2B and other speedy criteria. Mclay1 (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwerfjkl, as nominator, I request that you close this as keep. I think I will talk this over at WP:Baseball and, if needed, will open a new Cfd. I can see this is going nowhere and we're just going in circles.
    I still object because the reasons for speedying are very flawed, IMO. The football league is NOT primary because its a fifth-tier league compared to the baseball one which is top two in the world; and wins and saves in football - which seem to be minor stats - are not categorized by league anywhere as far as I can see and certainly will not be for such a small, local league.
    Anyways, please close this as keep. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (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:Novels about Go

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 12#Category:Novels about Go

Category:Track and Field books

[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 16:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these are books related to track and field. Three are not even books. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (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:Diplomatic missions in Burundi

[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 16:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation. Contains only a single article, the main article List of diplomatic missions in Burundi. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (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:Italian mathematicians by location

[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 (non-admin closure). Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have only one region in here. If kept the category should be renamed to Italian mathematicians by region to mirror other sibling/parent categories like Category:Italian scientists by region Mason (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2024 (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:First ladies and gentlemen of San Diego

[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 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an example of a non-defining category. The single article categorised as such was notable outside of his marriage to the mayor. AusLondonder (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2024 (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:Diplomats of former countries

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Diplomats of former countries


14th-century and 16th-century lighthouses

[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 (non-admin closure). Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are single-article isolated categories, this is not helpful for navigation. A second merge target is not needed because the articles are already in a Buildings and structures or Transport infrastructure by year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2024 (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:Historical monuments in Uzbekistan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Historical monuments in Uzbekistan

Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Scotland

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 12#Category:Noblemen in the Kingdom of Scotland

Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest

Category:People from Milovice (Nymburk District)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 12#Category:People from Milovice (Nymburk District)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_31&oldid=1245558371"