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, without prejudice to creating a new category as suggested by the nominator. I will move the sub-cat up.
Here is a link to the diffs, to facilitate populating the replacement. –
FayenaticLondon09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not have similar categories for membership in other youth organizations.
Category:Eagle Scouts might be seen as similar, but since the eagle is the top rank in the organization, that requires a significant commitment of both membership time and personal resources, it is more than just membership, and so not comparable. Whether we really should have that category is probably debatable, but it is a different issue than this one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:23, 26 July 2014 (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:Palestinianist groups
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.
Delete -- They all look like militant groups to me. If any are non-militant they belong in the organisations category. We do not need a third one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
User:Peterkingiron.Also because "Palestinianist" is not a word. (Is it based on "Islamist"? Does it mean anything other than Palestinian nationalist?)
Query: If this category is disbanded, who performs the act of reassigning its member pages to either of the existing categories mentioned in the Nominator's rationale? Presumably this requires assessing the page to determine whether the group is militant (supporting armed action to achieve its ends) vs. a non-militant nationalist organization? --
Deborahjay (
talk)
07:26, 31 July 2014 (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 girl detectives
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.
Keep the notion of the "girl detective" exists apart from adult female detectives. The fact that the girl detective is both female and not an adult is key to the genre. Since many of the popular girl detectives are adolescent girls, the entire genre can be considered as allegorical of the transition from child to adult female and the mysteries as a displacement for the protagonist's inability to publicly express her sexual maturity due to the mores of the time.
Nigel Pap (
talk)
21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It all depends on how you define adult. Nancy Drew was re-written to be 18, and in later works she goes off to college. Any of the contents of this category will also need to be in the parent, so it's rather pointless just to separate out the ones who are sometimes written a bit younger. Is Daphne from scooby doo a girl, or a woman? We only rarely have age-specific categories, we only have a few in
Category:Children by occupation, but here we're dealing with fictional characters, whose categories already blossom like crazy, so I see little value in separating further here.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You didn't put the quotes in right. The actual results for "girl detective" is far
fewer and almost half of those are about
Nancy Drew, which as Obi-Wan said, is debatable whether or not to even include.
JDDJS (
talk)
23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for fixing the quotes. I think 1,160 results proves my point even if half of them were about Nancy Drew. And Obi-Wan Kenobi is very very wrong about Nancy Drew. (By the way, that series of books now goes by the title
Girl Detective.)
Nigel Pap (
talk)
02:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think that is a fair assumption, but if Google Scholar lists 53 papers with the phrase "girl detective" in the title, that demonstrates that it is a known and studied term. What else do you want? What is the harm that this category is causing?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I want evidence of a significant diference between women detectives and girl detectives that proves that we need separate them.
JDDJS (
talk)
23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The trouble is that "girl detectives" are a distinct type of "amateur detective" not a special type of "women detective". Adult male and female detectives have much more in common than either does with girl detectives (or boy detectives). You do not seem to understand the genre differences, yet you wish to delete the category based on your ignorance. If the evidence already found is not convincing you, what would?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
03:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "girl detective" and "boy detective" are subgenres of detective fiction, stereotypically exemplified by the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. They once frequently appear in cartoons. So fictional characters of these types should be a distinguishing characteristic. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge do Nancy Drew stories after she turns 18 move into another genre (or whatever is the age or adulthood in your jurisdiction)? Hardly, Boys.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge The fact that Nancy Drew has been written to be 18 and then later go off to college shows that this is not a permanent trait of the characters involved. Beyound this the upper definition of "girl" will vary with location, time and other factors, so we are best to just avoid it all together.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge - while the definition of "girl" is a non-issue (for example, Nancy Drew would be defined as a girl based on modern United States), I think that Johnpacklambert's first reason is correct.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu13:01, 1 August 2014 (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:Girl detectives
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.
It seems logical to me to have this as a container for the sub-category, but if that doesn't count as content in itself then I have no objection to this being deleted.
Nigel Pap (
talk)
02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not need real parents for all fictional categories. Until we have articles on real people who are notable for being detectives prior to the age of 18 or so, I think we should not have this category. Even if we get someone who is notable for something else, but was in some way a "detective" before age 18, we should refrain from creating the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:41, 22 July 2014 (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 women engineers
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.
delete in this case it violates the final rung rule - there are no diffusing siblings and thus this will tend to keep women engineers separated from the parent. The 'real' category is much more developed and can support a gender breakdown.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Obi-Wan Kenobi, are you saying that the fictional women would be treated unfairly by being "segregated", but that women (real women) should be split off in the category that contains non-fictional people?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Since we do not split fictional engineers by nationality, we way to avoid separation of these people by gender. While I am not convinced that avoiding unwanted separation by gender is as bad in fictional categories as those for real people, there are still reasons to avoid it, especially when we are dealing with real occupations. We also seem to separate fictional engineers less by engineering specialty, but even with real engineers, we seem to do a fairly bad job at separation by specialty. This is odd because civil, mechanical, chemical and electrical engineers as well as other sub-fields have little in common. To make things more fun, there is also some group of engineers who are such because they supervise the running of engines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:02, 22 July 2014 (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:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe
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 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.
Italian municipalities
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 majority of Categories for Italian municipalities as well as
Category:Communes of Italy uses the Italian term commune for the name of the category. A small number of municipalities however uses municipalities. I guess that this is just caused by the preference of the user who created the category. To avoid confusion about the difference of terminology the categories should be renamed to commune.
Inwind (
talk)
10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentReverse merge: according to the lead article
Comune, 'municipality' seems to be the regular English translation of the Italian word 'comune' (with only one 'm'!) and 'commune' is just a wrong translation. I'm not the expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I am correct, it would be more logical to name all of them 'municipalities'.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Apologies upfront, I don't want to be the play the role of the bad guy here, especially not since I'm not even speaking Italian, but we should be honest with each other about the fact that in these previous discussions 'municipality' has not been discussed as a viable alternative, while this is exactly what the current discussion is about.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thanks for the ping,
Fayenatic L. I have little knowledge of the Italian language or of Italian local government. My involvement in this arises solely from trying to get some standardisation in article and category titles for WP's terminology for the Italian word "comune/comuni", initially at
Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move. That discussion was closed with a consensus to use the literal translation "communes", which I accepted and used as the basis for
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Comunes_of_Italy. Neither discussion appears to have included anyone with significant expertise, so we were all a little in the dark. I think that
Marcocapelle has raised a valid concern, but it is one which I have no way of answering, and the abysmally poor sourcing of the head article
comune gives us little help. I suggest that there are two questions, where some expert advice would help:
What translation of the Italian word "comune" is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources?
Does the same terminology apply to all comuni? It occurs to me that there may a sub-type or variant of "comune" which is more appropriately labelled a "municipality".
FWIW, my suggestion is to start by improving the head article, and find the reliable sources which could answer these questions, before a followup CFD based on whatever answers arise these. There is a general consensus on the principle that categories should follow the head article, but the current head article is not robust enough to follow. And sorry, despite my suggestion I don't have the time or energy to do the necessary research myself :( --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks a lot for your problem analysis! By the way, I've been trying to involve Italian Wikipedians in this discussion but without any success so far. I'll try to think of other ways in the next week.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term.
Gryffindor (
talk)
18:32, 11 August 2014 (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:Milwaukee, Wisconsin
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.
Is it possible to provide a link to the latest discussion(s) about this? I'm curious to know how the discussion went along with regards to cities in other countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Renames There is no 'city, state' standard, as seen at
Category:London,
Category:Paris and
Category:New York City. Throughout the world, we manage to match category titles for places to their corresponding article titles. It's well past time that we followed this sensible standard across the board for all such articles, instead of creating needless inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
keep as is renames such as this are little more than local boosterism and totally unwanted and unhelpful to all the less-than-totally-all-knowing readers of WP
Hmains (
talk)
04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"Boosterism"? "Unwanted"? "Unhelpful"? The proposal is to match the unambiguous title of the parent article and creating greater consistency across the world for categories corresponding to place names. IDNOTLIKEIT is a poor justification to perpeuate arbitrary discrepancies from international standards.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep we have an international readership, and familiarity cannot be assumed. (I should mention I would support full qualified city names for all case, even NYC. DGG (
talk )
16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support rename, as I begin to understand that the suggested 'standard' does not cover non-USA cities so it's actually not a standard at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The standard set over many cfds is for the names of categories of US cities (to avoid needless inconsistency); the main instigator was Mike Selinker. Most countries don't use the 'city, state' format and many lack states altogether. Many past cfd discussions are linked within the discussion for
Chicago in July 2013.
Oculi (
talk)
00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I thought the American convention was city, state. It does not necessarily apply elsewhere. This is more necessary for categories than articles
Milwaukee (disambiguation) shows there are other places using the name. The classic case is
Birmingham whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands to provent the category picking up articles relating to
Birmingham, Alabama. It is a long tiem ago that we settled on that solution. This may be less necessary for a big city like Milwarkee, but better leave as is.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
If no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the article title, then no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the category name either. Category names never require a higher level of disambiguation than their matching articles do.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
For the Birmingham case, I think it would make more sense to name them Birmingham, UK and Birmingham, USA. Generally, I would prefer the format: city((, countrypart), country) where the brackets in this case denote the optional addition only in case of multiple cities with the same name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The actual standard that applies to cities' eponymous categories is that they need to match the same level of disambiguation used in the article title. There is no rule that city categories must always be dabbed by state, province or country regardless of the article's dab status — and there is no valid reason why a dab-mismatch situation can ever actually be necessary, either. If Milwaukee is unambiguous enough to be the article title then it's unambiguous enough to be the category name, and if it's not unambiguous enough to be the category name then it's not unambiguous enough to be the article title — the only way that an article title and its associated category name can ever need to be disambiguated differently than each other is if one decision or the other is being based on incorrect reasoning and needs a rethink. Support nom.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Milwaukee is not ambiguous enough to warrant the state expansion on the category. The other three places that could potentially cause confusion are very obscure to me and personally I would be very surprised to hear many editors hear had heard of them before looking at the disambiguation page.
SFB20:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep – A primary topic in article space is only designated that way to facilitate ease of searches: it's not an eclipse of all the other topics. There is no compelling reason to alter an unmistakably clear name which, when abridged, may easily be conflated with a competing term like
Milwaukee County or anything else from the lengthy dab page. The city/state form provides logical structure for all readers, and harmonizes with virtually all the other US entries.
SteveStrummer (
talk)
04:00, 22 July 2014 (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.
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, without prejudice to creating a new category as suggested by the nominator. I will move the sub-cat up.
Here is a link to the diffs, to facilitate populating the replacement. –
FayenaticLondon09:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not have similar categories for membership in other youth organizations.
Category:Eagle Scouts might be seen as similar, but since the eagle is the top rank in the organization, that requires a significant commitment of both membership time and personal resources, it is more than just membership, and so not comparable. Whether we really should have that category is probably debatable, but it is a different issue than this one.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:23, 26 July 2014 (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:Palestinianist groups
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.
Delete -- They all look like militant groups to me. If any are non-militant they belong in the organisations category. We do not need a third one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
User:Peterkingiron.Also because "Palestinianist" is not a word. (Is it based on "Islamist"? Does it mean anything other than Palestinian nationalist?)
Query: If this category is disbanded, who performs the act of reassigning its member pages to either of the existing categories mentioned in the Nominator's rationale? Presumably this requires assessing the page to determine whether the group is militant (supporting armed action to achieve its ends) vs. a non-militant nationalist organization? --
Deborahjay (
talk)
07:26, 31 July 2014 (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 girl detectives
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.
Keep the notion of the "girl detective" exists apart from adult female detectives. The fact that the girl detective is both female and not an adult is key to the genre. Since many of the popular girl detectives are adolescent girls, the entire genre can be considered as allegorical of the transition from child to adult female and the mysteries as a displacement for the protagonist's inability to publicly express her sexual maturity due to the mores of the time.
Nigel Pap (
talk)
21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It all depends on how you define adult. Nancy Drew was re-written to be 18, and in later works she goes off to college. Any of the contents of this category will also need to be in the parent, so it's rather pointless just to separate out the ones who are sometimes written a bit younger. Is Daphne from scooby doo a girl, or a woman? We only rarely have age-specific categories, we only have a few in
Category:Children by occupation, but here we're dealing with fictional characters, whose categories already blossom like crazy, so I see little value in separating further here.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You didn't put the quotes in right. The actual results for "girl detective" is far
fewer and almost half of those are about
Nancy Drew, which as Obi-Wan said, is debatable whether or not to even include.
JDDJS (
talk)
23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for fixing the quotes. I think 1,160 results proves my point even if half of them were about Nancy Drew. And Obi-Wan Kenobi is very very wrong about Nancy Drew. (By the way, that series of books now goes by the title
Girl Detective.)
Nigel Pap (
talk)
02:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think that is a fair assumption, but if Google Scholar lists 53 papers with the phrase "girl detective" in the title, that demonstrates that it is a known and studied term. What else do you want? What is the harm that this category is causing?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I want evidence of a significant diference between women detectives and girl detectives that proves that we need separate them.
JDDJS (
talk)
23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The trouble is that "girl detectives" are a distinct type of "amateur detective" not a special type of "women detective". Adult male and female detectives have much more in common than either does with girl detectives (or boy detectives). You do not seem to understand the genre differences, yet you wish to delete the category based on your ignorance. If the evidence already found is not convincing you, what would?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
03:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep "girl detective" and "boy detective" are subgenres of detective fiction, stereotypically exemplified by the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. They once frequently appear in cartoons. So fictional characters of these types should be a distinguishing characteristic. --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge do Nancy Drew stories after she turns 18 move into another genre (or whatever is the age or adulthood in your jurisdiction)? Hardly, Boys.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge The fact that Nancy Drew has been written to be 18 and then later go off to college shows that this is not a permanent trait of the characters involved. Beyound this the upper definition of "girl" will vary with location, time and other factors, so we are best to just avoid it all together.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge - while the definition of "girl" is a non-issue (for example, Nancy Drew would be defined as a girl based on modern United States), I think that Johnpacklambert's first reason is correct.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu13:01, 1 August 2014 (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:Girl detectives
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.
It seems logical to me to have this as a container for the sub-category, but if that doesn't count as content in itself then I have no objection to this being deleted.
Nigel Pap (
talk)
02:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not need real parents for all fictional categories. Until we have articles on real people who are notable for being detectives prior to the age of 18 or so, I think we should not have this category. Even if we get someone who is notable for something else, but was in some way a "detective" before age 18, we should refrain from creating the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:41, 22 July 2014 (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 women engineers
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.
delete in this case it violates the final rung rule - there are no diffusing siblings and thus this will tend to keep women engineers separated from the parent. The 'real' category is much more developed and can support a gender breakdown.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Obi-Wan Kenobi, are you saying that the fictional women would be treated unfairly by being "segregated", but that women (real women) should be split off in the category that contains non-fictional people?
Nigel Pap (
talk)
14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Since we do not split fictional engineers by nationality, we way to avoid separation of these people by gender. While I am not convinced that avoiding unwanted separation by gender is as bad in fictional categories as those for real people, there are still reasons to avoid it, especially when we are dealing with real occupations. We also seem to separate fictional engineers less by engineering specialty, but even with real engineers, we seem to do a fairly bad job at separation by specialty. This is odd because civil, mechanical, chemical and electrical engineers as well as other sub-fields have little in common. To make things more fun, there is also some group of engineers who are such because they supervise the running of engines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:02, 22 July 2014 (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:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe
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 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.
Italian municipalities
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 majority of Categories for Italian municipalities as well as
Category:Communes of Italy uses the Italian term commune for the name of the category. A small number of municipalities however uses municipalities. I guess that this is just caused by the preference of the user who created the category. To avoid confusion about the difference of terminology the categories should be renamed to commune.
Inwind (
talk)
10:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
CommentReverse merge: according to the lead article
Comune, 'municipality' seems to be the regular English translation of the Italian word 'comune' (with only one 'm'!) and 'commune' is just a wrong translation. I'm not the expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But if I am correct, it would be more logical to name all of them 'municipalities'.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Apologies upfront, I don't want to be the play the role of the bad guy here, especially not since I'm not even speaking Italian, but we should be honest with each other about the fact that in these previous discussions 'municipality' has not been discussed as a viable alternative, while this is exactly what the current discussion is about.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thanks for the ping,
Fayenatic L. I have little knowledge of the Italian language or of Italian local government. My involvement in this arises solely from trying to get some standardisation in article and category titles for WP's terminology for the Italian word "comune/comuni", initially at
Talk:List of communes of the Province of Agrigento#Requested_move. That discussion was closed with a consensus to use the literal translation "communes", which I accepted and used as the basis for
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Comunes_of_Italy. Neither discussion appears to have included anyone with significant expertise, so we were all a little in the dark. I think that
Marcocapelle has raised a valid concern, but it is one which I have no way of answering, and the abysmally poor sourcing of the head article
comune gives us little help. I suggest that there are two questions, where some expert advice would help:
What translation of the Italian word "comune" is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources?
Does the same terminology apply to all comuni? It occurs to me that there may a sub-type or variant of "comune" which is more appropriately labelled a "municipality".
FWIW, my suggestion is to start by improving the head article, and find the reliable sources which could answer these questions, before a followup CFD based on whatever answers arise these. There is a general consensus on the principle that categories should follow the head article, but the current head article is not robust enough to follow. And sorry, despite my suggestion I don't have the time or energy to do the necessary research myself :( --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks a lot for your problem analysis! By the way, I've been trying to involve Italian Wikipedians in this discussion but without any success so far. I'll try to think of other ways in the next week.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge. The term "municipalities" is a term that is wider used in English than "communes", which is basically a verbatim translation of the Italian term.
Gryffindor (
talk)
18:32, 11 August 2014 (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:Milwaukee, Wisconsin
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.
Is it possible to provide a link to the latest discussion(s) about this? I'm curious to know how the discussion went along with regards to cities in other countries.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Renames There is no 'city, state' standard, as seen at
Category:London,
Category:Paris and
Category:New York City. Throughout the world, we manage to match category titles for places to their corresponding article titles. It's well past time that we followed this sensible standard across the board for all such articles, instead of creating needless inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
keep as is renames such as this are little more than local boosterism and totally unwanted and unhelpful to all the less-than-totally-all-knowing readers of WP
Hmains (
talk)
04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
"Boosterism"? "Unwanted"? "Unhelpful"? The proposal is to match the unambiguous title of the parent article and creating greater consistency across the world for categories corresponding to place names. IDNOTLIKEIT is a poor justification to perpeuate arbitrary discrepancies from international standards.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep we have an international readership, and familiarity cannot be assumed. (I should mention I would support full qualified city names for all case, even NYC. DGG (
talk )
16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support rename, as I begin to understand that the suggested 'standard' does not cover non-USA cities so it's actually not a standard at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The standard set over many cfds is for the names of categories of US cities (to avoid needless inconsistency); the main instigator was Mike Selinker. Most countries don't use the 'city, state' format and many lack states altogether. Many past cfd discussions are linked within the discussion for
Chicago in July 2013.
Oculi (
talk)
00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I thought the American convention was city, state. It does not necessarily apply elsewhere. This is more necessary for categories than articles
Milwaukee (disambiguation) shows there are other places using the name. The classic case is
Birmingham whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands to provent the category picking up articles relating to
Birmingham, Alabama. It is a long tiem ago that we settled on that solution. This may be less necessary for a big city like Milwarkee, but better leave as is.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
If no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the article title, then no other Milwaukee is notable enough to challenge the one in Wisconsin for ownership of the category name either. Category names never require a higher level of disambiguation than their matching articles do.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
For the Birmingham case, I think it would make more sense to name them Birmingham, UK and Birmingham, USA. Generally, I would prefer the format: city((, countrypart), country) where the brackets in this case denote the optional addition only in case of multiple cities with the same name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The actual standard that applies to cities' eponymous categories is that they need to match the same level of disambiguation used in the article title. There is no rule that city categories must always be dabbed by state, province or country regardless of the article's dab status — and there is no valid reason why a dab-mismatch situation can ever actually be necessary, either. If Milwaukee is unambiguous enough to be the article title then it's unambiguous enough to be the category name, and if it's not unambiguous enough to be the category name then it's not unambiguous enough to be the article title — the only way that an article title and its associated category name can ever need to be disambiguated differently than each other is if one decision or the other is being based on incorrect reasoning and needs a rethink. Support nom.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Milwaukee is not ambiguous enough to warrant the state expansion on the category. The other three places that could potentially cause confusion are very obscure to me and personally I would be very surprised to hear many editors hear had heard of them before looking at the disambiguation page.
SFB20:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep – A primary topic in article space is only designated that way to facilitate ease of searches: it's not an eclipse of all the other topics. There is no compelling reason to alter an unmistakably clear name which, when abridged, may easily be conflated with a competing term like
Milwaukee County or anything else from the lengthy dab page. The city/state form provides logical structure for all readers, and harmonizes with virtually all the other US entries.
SteveStrummer (
talk)
04:00, 22 July 2014 (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.