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.
Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Sorry, I wish I could recall. I'd have posted the link if I could remember it. I will do some burrowing now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Sorry, no luck finding it. AFAICR, at the time I preferred "on", but the consensus was for "in".
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
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
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
Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of
Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of
Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g.
Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g.
Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here.
Nyttend (
talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Greenland is also so large (like Great Britain) that most people would say "in" instead of "on". While these are major islands they aren't large enough that things on them would naturally be referred to as "in". Also none of these are states or equivalent of such as
Tasmania (which has
Category:Localities in Tasmania),
Isle of Wight (which has
Category:Villages on the Isle of Wight) and
Anglesey (which has
Category:Villages in Anglesey but the administrative unit is actually "
Isle of Anglesey" and like Tasmania including
Flinders Island and many
others it also contains
Holy Island and several
others). Some are (or at least were) civil parishes such as
Jura which also includes the islands of
Colonsay and
Scarba and if a category for Jura parish (as opposed to just island) existed (which it probably shouldn't since Scottish CPs don't appear to have much current status) we might have "Villages in Jura, Scotland". Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - seems to be the majority usage in
Category:Villages in the Inner Hebrides. One would say 'village on the Isle of Skye'. 'Portree is on the Isle of Skye', not 'in' or 'of' or 'upon'.
Oculi (
talk) 16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support" "on" is much better than "in" for a single island.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion?
Nyttend (
talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example
Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --
Deskford (
talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tea Tree oils
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nepalese Masculine given names
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo. All other "X masculine given names" categories in this branch use sentence case.
GermanJoe (
talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Support Per
WP:C2A Typographic and spelling fixes and
WP:C2C Consistency with established category tree names.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 17:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:delete as redundant category layers, they both contain only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Both Since there are not any direct articles, this isn't aiding navigation and growth potential seems limited.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No conceptual obection to the parent category but we only have the main article,
Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank. For the subcategory, there is also just 1 article (
Alberto Bacó Bagué) and Mr. Bagué has held a large number of different rotating offices so this one doesn't seem defining. (It also appears from the
PREDB article that the top official is "President" not director but that may be a translation issue.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- yet another OCAWARD case.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 17 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.
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.
Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Sorry, I wish I could recall. I'd have posted the link if I could remember it. I will do some burrowing now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Sorry, no luck finding it. AFAICR, at the time I preferred "on", but the consensus was for "in".
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
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
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
Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of
Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of
Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g.
Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g.
Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here.
Nyttend (
talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Greenland is also so large (like Great Britain) that most people would say "in" instead of "on". While these are major islands they aren't large enough that things on them would naturally be referred to as "in". Also none of these are states or equivalent of such as
Tasmania (which has
Category:Localities in Tasmania),
Isle of Wight (which has
Category:Villages on the Isle of Wight) and
Anglesey (which has
Category:Villages in Anglesey but the administrative unit is actually "
Isle of Anglesey" and like Tasmania including
Flinders Island and many
others it also contains
Holy Island and several
others). Some are (or at least were) civil parishes such as
Jura which also includes the islands of
Colonsay and
Scarba and if a category for Jura parish (as opposed to just island) existed (which it probably shouldn't since Scottish CPs don't appear to have much current status) we might have "Villages in Jura, Scotland". Crouch, Swale (
talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - seems to be the majority usage in
Category:Villages in the Inner Hebrides. One would say 'village on the Isle of Skye'. 'Portree is on the Isle of Skye', not 'in' or 'of' or 'upon'.
Oculi (
talk) 16:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support" "on" is much better than "in" for a single island.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion?
Nyttend (
talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example
Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --
Deskford (
talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tea Tree oils
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nepalese Masculine given names
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Obvious typo. All other "X masculine given names" categories in this branch use sentence case.
GermanJoe (
talk) 17:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy Support Per
WP:C2A Typographic and spelling fixes and
WP:C2C Consistency with established category tree names.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 17:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:delete as redundant category layers, they both contain only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Both Since there are not any direct articles, this isn't aiding navigation and growth potential seems limited.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No conceptual obection to the parent category but we only have the main article,
Puerto Rico Economic Development Bank. For the subcategory, there is also just 1 article (
Alberto Bacó Bagué) and Mr. Bagué has held a large number of different rotating offices so this one doesn't seem defining. (It also appears from the
PREDB article that the top official is "President" not director but that may be a translation issue.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint Peter of Cetinje
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- yet another OCAWARD case.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 17 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.