Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Mobile Game of the Year winners
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.
Post-creation addendum: I did not realize category creator had created an entire categorization scheme at
Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. I don't think the D.I.C.E awards qualify as something to track with categories, although improving the list articles on each winner is great. I guess we should treat this one subcategory as a test case - if there's strong consensus behind deletion as overcategorization, I can make a follow-up nomination for the rest of the category. Alternatively, maybe
D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year might possibly squeak by (I'm doubtful, but it's the most notable of the set), while stuff like Outstanding Award for Technical Achievement is deleted.
SnowFire (
talk)
21:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Conceptual Support/Favor Expanding The nominator is right that this doesn't pass
WP:OCAWARD but if we delete the mobile game subcat, the correct action would be to upmerge to [[
Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. Unless this particular category is nondefining, it probably makes sense to nominate the whole D.I.C.E. tree. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:31, 30 August 2023 (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 Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms" (Ministry of Defence of the Russia)
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 category should only contain broad overview articles, but none of the six articles was a broad overview article. These are the diffs to show what I have boldly done with the six articles:
[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Feel free to find different solutions.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: tagging the target page as Reverse merge has been suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon15:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support reverse merge as second choice as nom. Ultimately, based on linguistic evidence, we can count the
Romani people as Indo-Europeans, so it is not wrong to merge them that way either.
NLeeuw (
talk)
19:59, 29 August 2023 (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.
Real estate websites
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:German Mizrahi Jews
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:WP:SMALLCAT currently containing a single person. Wikipedia does not have a comprehensive scheme of using the category system to subdivide "[Nationality] Mizrahi Jews" from the general non-Mizrahi "[Nationality] Jews" -- at present, the only two countries that have one of these are Israel, which has a uniquely Israel-specific reason why such specificity is actually necessary (and over 200 people in the category), and the United States, where the
Category:American Mizrahi Jews category has over 700 people in it. So this would be fine if there were a lot more people who could be filed here, but it's not needed as a category of one since there's no comprehensive subcategorization scheme for this to be a part of. Microcategories of one do not assist navigation of the wikipedia.
Bearcat (
talk)
11:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Dual merge, at least for now, but perhaps even with prejudice against re-creation, dependent on if the Jewish community in Germany is keen on distinctions by regional descent (which I do not know).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:57, 30 August 2023 (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:Association football people by prefecture in Japan
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.
Firmed up my !vote to a firm oppose. The proposed renames add no clarity, and introduce ambiguity about scope. Category names are brief labels, not essays, and precision trumps grammar. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as formulated. The only reason I saw this was due to the tag under "People by county in West Virginia", which is awkwardly phrased but clear; the proposal would change it to "People in West Virginia by county", which is less awkward but means something else. The same problem would be created many if not most of the other nominated categories: they're presumably intended to people who are either natives or residents of specific places, but the proposed titles read as if they're giving the present location of the people, which would be absurd in many instances.
For example, a notable person who was born in Raleigh County, West Virginia could be included under the present title no matter where his life took him—halls of Congress, Tour de France, Darkest Peru—or whether he ever returned. He wouldn't, however, be a "person in West Virginia", or a "person in Raleigh County, West Virginia". The more sensible formulation in this instance would be "West Virginians by county" or "people from West Virginia by county", either of which could include people whether they were born or raised in a county, or merely settled there at some point.
This would probably apply to all of the other states with "by county" subcategories, and perhaps many of the national categories. I note that the original proposal applied specifically to "sportspeople" in certain groups—perhaps the proposal became overbroad in formulation.
P Aculeius (
talk)
12:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Most if not all People by county in Foo (etc.) categories are container cats for People from Bar County subcats. Shouldn't the suggested title be People from Foo by county instead, so that they directly reflect the subcategories? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with this. It's more definitive. "Cat:People from (country name) by (division name)".
Under the alternate: "Cat:Association football people by (division name) in (country name)" then you can also file people based on where they work. i.e. an South American player living in Europe could be filed under where born, where they work, and where they are living. And if they change teams perhaps multiple places where they worked. past tense.
CaribDigita (
talk)
16:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support aligns related structure of naming and disagree that this changes the meaning of the categories. "Association football people by prefecture in Japan" is semantically no different from "Association football people in Japan by prefecture". While the actual usage and category contents may imply a local identity (or not) the current wording makes no more claim on that point that the proposed one.
SFB20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
So, you want to change the scope of a hundred categories about people from places to be about people who are presently located in them, merely because the subdivisions of those places are in them and the wording is awkward? Counties, provinces, regions, governorates, cantons, towns, etc. don't move around—they're always in the places they're subdivisions of. People aren't fixtures. If you change all of these titles, then you'll have to remove thousands of articles from the categories, and keep doing it whenever the people in those categories leave one place for another, and then hundreds of new categories will need to be created to do the job of the ones being renamed through this proposal. I don't understand why people aren't seeing the difference between "people by county in foo" and "people in foo by county"
P Aculeius (
talk)
12:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
P Aculeius, I don't intend any change in scope. I can see how those names could be confusing, however. For the county categories I agree with CaribDigita's alternative above. —
Qwerfjkltalk18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That would be better, although A) I think this needs to apply to most of the categories for people who aren't on sports teams—the teams may be geographically fixed, in a sense, but people definitely aren't—not just those with state–county distinctions, but also regions/cantons/parishes/provinces/etc.; and B) "West Virginians by county" or "Alabamians by county" would be even more natural than "People from Alabama by county", although that's much less worrisome to me than the distinction between "in" and "from".
P Aculeius (
talk)
18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak support, I am not generally a fan of consistency for consistency's sake but categories are a bit of an exception, and consistently having "by X" at the end of the category name seems good. OTOH these category names are pretty awkward. Something like "Japanese association football players by prefecture" as proposed above might be preferable although I think I'd want to get some more input from knowledgeable editors before supporting that, since it seems like it might be open to varying interpretations. --
Visviva (
talk)
16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The intended meaning is not e.g. 'X by municipality' but 'People by municipality', so it should be phrased like that. --
TadejMmy talk12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your argument is entirely unclear. The discussion is not about X versus people, it is people in any case. The discussion is about the order of the words after people.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. It doesn't sound right. Instead, I suggest using Fooyan footballers by division, Fooyan football people by division, Fooyan soccer players by division, and the like.
gidonb (
talk)
00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as formulated. Agree fully with User:P Aculeius. I also agree that the current naming convention is awkward; it should be "People from country by county/province/state". -- P 1 9 9✉02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You seem to be waiting for this to be closed, after which an admin would have to list all the categories for a bot to un-tag them; and later you would have to tag them all again for a revised proposal using demonyms. Surely it would be more efficient to agree a compromise here? If you spell out an Alt-1 proposal with a few examples, you may gain a consensus. –
FayenaticLondon12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. Demonyms are a fraud. They pretend to be one thing but are something else. In wiki land, they are put forward as meaning "a citizen of the sovereign state of Foo". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not true. This happens when it means "is usually resident in state Foo" or "spent his career working in Foo" or "is an ethnic Fooian". A "French Polynesian" is not a citizen of a sovereign state; he is a resident of an overseas territory (AKA colony) and possibly also a citizen of Republic Of France. In the case of a man born in 1950 on the island of
Ireland, he may self-identify as "British" (if born in
Belfast for example) or as "Irish" (if born in
Dublin for example). It's also complicated by the fact that some people born in Belfast self-identify as "Irish". And then what to call people born before the establishment of the
Republic of Ireland? In reality there are often two tree structures: by country and by nationality. Wiki should stop pretending that one comprehends the other. In some cases it does, in other cases it does not. The use of the demonyn permits this fraud to flourish - it is a grammatical fudge and should be stamped out.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london, it's no problem, really I have should have done it myself. I would prefer to close this and start a new nomination to make the consensus clearer, but you're opposed to that, so I think relisting and providing a collapsed list of the alt nomination would be best.
Qwerfjkltalk21:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support this proposal. While I don't think there's any problem with using demonyms with the names of U.S. states, this formulation still addresses the chief issue with the original proposal, in that the category names will mean what people expect them to mean, and define a logical scope: people from X rather than in X. There might be rare instances when the latter formulation makes sense, but readers will nearly always be looking for people from X.
P Aculeius (
talk)
13:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm concerned about, chiefly. While I think that "West Virginians" is as clear and more concise than "people from West Virginia", it has approximately the same scope. The names of "People from U.S. states" categories can always be discussed in future, but this proposal was originally about "athletes in place by subdivision of place", and for reasons not clear to me included "people in U.S. states...", as well as general categories following the same formulation everywhere else. It makes no sense at all to use general categories for people in rather than people from, since people are movable, and readers will almost invariably want to find people who either originate from or reside in a particular place, irrespective of their current location. For purposes of this discussion, "Fooians" and "People from Foo" are near equivalents; "People in Foo" is the problem, because it's obviously meant to be the same as "People from Foo", but isn't.
P Aculeius (
talk)
01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
(Thanks for the ping but) oppose. I thought the formulation most people (myself included) noted their preference for above was Association football people from Japan by prefecture, etc. Why not have that as the alt proposal? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Note Fayentic's comment above. (Posted after yours.)
Support alt as much as I support the original nomination. The splitter is at the end, this was what the discussion was about. A discussion about fooian people versus people from foo can be done some other time.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It was not clear to me how it was ambiguous but if it is clear for other editors then just go for it. I am not opposing either, that is what matters most, I guess.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
In case my replies above are unclear, what I'm supporting is any solution that uses either "people from Foo" or "Fooians", as opposed to "People in Foo", which in my opinion is an unhelpful formulation for most categories, because people are mobile, and readers will nearly always be looking for people who come from or reside in a place, irrespective of where they may be at a particular time. As Marcocapelle says, "Fooians" versus "People from Foo" can be discussed some other time, and (I hope) perhaps in discussions more focused on a smaller selection of categories—this started with a very specific and focused number, and somehow expanded to encompass the rest of the universe. If it hadn't somehow engulfed all categories for people from U.S. states, I wouldn't even have been aware of the discussion.
P Aculeius (
talk)
01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose prefer the current system with the splitter in the middle and country at the end, rather than the beginning, as it seems more natural. Countries being at the end would also be more helpful when searching for categories, "People/Sportpeople/footballers by county/stage/region" seems easier to search for to me, than by having demonyms or having countries in the middle.
Happily888 (
talk)
11:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say the splitter s the middle is more "natural". Why? Most categories have the splitter at the end, which makes sense logically.
You say categories at the end would be more helpful when searching. That seems dubious to me.
And again you bring up this searching argument, wwhich still seems dubious. I doubt people will struggle to search the categories whichever way they are ordered.
After all, even though in the nomination all the categories are listed together, they are in fact for the most part totally separate. Nobody is going to have to run their eyes down this whole list, in all likelihood there will only be a few dozen at best that they'll have to contend with.
Qwerfjkltalk21:29, 8 September 2023 (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:Politicians from New South Wales
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:D.I.C.E. Award for Mobile Game of the Year winners
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.
Post-creation addendum: I did not realize category creator had created an entire categorization scheme at
Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. I don't think the D.I.C.E awards qualify as something to track with categories, although improving the list articles on each winner is great. I guess we should treat this one subcategory as a test case - if there's strong consensus behind deletion as overcategorization, I can make a follow-up nomination for the rest of the category. Alternatively, maybe
D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year might possibly squeak by (I'm doubtful, but it's the most notable of the set), while stuff like Outstanding Award for Technical Achievement is deleted.
SnowFire (
talk)
21:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Conceptual Support/Favor Expanding The nominator is right that this doesn't pass
WP:OCAWARD but if we delete the mobile game subcat, the correct action would be to upmerge to [[
Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners. Unless this particular category is nondefining, it probably makes sense to nominate the whole D.I.C.E. tree. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:31, 30 August 2023 (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 Medal "For Strengthening of Brotherhood in Arms" (Ministry of Defence of the Russia)
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 category should only contain broad overview articles, but none of the six articles was a broad overview article. These are the diffs to show what I have boldly done with the six articles:
[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Feel free to find different solutions.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: tagging the target page as Reverse merge has been suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon15:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support reverse merge as second choice as nom. Ultimately, based on linguistic evidence, we can count the
Romani people as Indo-Europeans, so it is not wrong to merge them that way either.
NLeeuw (
talk)
19:59, 29 August 2023 (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.
Real estate websites
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:German Mizrahi Jews
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:WP:SMALLCAT currently containing a single person. Wikipedia does not have a comprehensive scheme of using the category system to subdivide "[Nationality] Mizrahi Jews" from the general non-Mizrahi "[Nationality] Jews" -- at present, the only two countries that have one of these are Israel, which has a uniquely Israel-specific reason why such specificity is actually necessary (and over 200 people in the category), and the United States, where the
Category:American Mizrahi Jews category has over 700 people in it. So this would be fine if there were a lot more people who could be filed here, but it's not needed as a category of one since there's no comprehensive subcategorization scheme for this to be a part of. Microcategories of one do not assist navigation of the wikipedia.
Bearcat (
talk)
11:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Dual merge, at least for now, but perhaps even with prejudice against re-creation, dependent on if the Jewish community in Germany is keen on distinctions by regional descent (which I do not know).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:57, 30 August 2023 (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:Association football people by prefecture in Japan
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.
Firmed up my !vote to a firm oppose. The proposed renames add no clarity, and introduce ambiguity about scope. Category names are brief labels, not essays, and precision trumps grammar. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as formulated. The only reason I saw this was due to the tag under "People by county in West Virginia", which is awkwardly phrased but clear; the proposal would change it to "People in West Virginia by county", which is less awkward but means something else. The same problem would be created many if not most of the other nominated categories: they're presumably intended to people who are either natives or residents of specific places, but the proposed titles read as if they're giving the present location of the people, which would be absurd in many instances.
For example, a notable person who was born in Raleigh County, West Virginia could be included under the present title no matter where his life took him—halls of Congress, Tour de France, Darkest Peru—or whether he ever returned. He wouldn't, however, be a "person in West Virginia", or a "person in Raleigh County, West Virginia". The more sensible formulation in this instance would be "West Virginians by county" or "people from West Virginia by county", either of which could include people whether they were born or raised in a county, or merely settled there at some point.
This would probably apply to all of the other states with "by county" subcategories, and perhaps many of the national categories. I note that the original proposal applied specifically to "sportspeople" in certain groups—perhaps the proposal became overbroad in formulation.
P Aculeius (
talk)
12:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Most if not all People by county in Foo (etc.) categories are container cats for People from Bar County subcats. Shouldn't the suggested title be People from Foo by county instead, so that they directly reflect the subcategories? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with this. It's more definitive. "Cat:People from (country name) by (division name)".
Under the alternate: "Cat:Association football people by (division name) in (country name)" then you can also file people based on where they work. i.e. an South American player living in Europe could be filed under where born, where they work, and where they are living. And if they change teams perhaps multiple places where they worked. past tense.
CaribDigita (
talk)
16:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support aligns related structure of naming and disagree that this changes the meaning of the categories. "Association football people by prefecture in Japan" is semantically no different from "Association football people in Japan by prefecture". While the actual usage and category contents may imply a local identity (or not) the current wording makes no more claim on that point that the proposed one.
SFB20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
So, you want to change the scope of a hundred categories about people from places to be about people who are presently located in them, merely because the subdivisions of those places are in them and the wording is awkward? Counties, provinces, regions, governorates, cantons, towns, etc. don't move around—they're always in the places they're subdivisions of. People aren't fixtures. If you change all of these titles, then you'll have to remove thousands of articles from the categories, and keep doing it whenever the people in those categories leave one place for another, and then hundreds of new categories will need to be created to do the job of the ones being renamed through this proposal. I don't understand why people aren't seeing the difference between "people by county in foo" and "people in foo by county"
P Aculeius (
talk)
12:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
P Aculeius, I don't intend any change in scope. I can see how those names could be confusing, however. For the county categories I agree with CaribDigita's alternative above. —
Qwerfjkltalk18:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That would be better, although A) I think this needs to apply to most of the categories for people who aren't on sports teams—the teams may be geographically fixed, in a sense, but people definitely aren't—not just those with state–county distinctions, but also regions/cantons/parishes/provinces/etc.; and B) "West Virginians by county" or "Alabamians by county" would be even more natural than "People from Alabama by county", although that's much less worrisome to me than the distinction between "in" and "from".
P Aculeius (
talk)
18:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak support, I am not generally a fan of consistency for consistency's sake but categories are a bit of an exception, and consistently having "by X" at the end of the category name seems good. OTOH these category names are pretty awkward. Something like "Japanese association football players by prefecture" as proposed above might be preferable although I think I'd want to get some more input from knowledgeable editors before supporting that, since it seems like it might be open to varying interpretations. --
Visviva (
talk)
16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The intended meaning is not e.g. 'X by municipality' but 'People by municipality', so it should be phrased like that. --
TadejMmy talk12:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your argument is entirely unclear. The discussion is not about X versus people, it is people in any case. The discussion is about the order of the words after people.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. It doesn't sound right. Instead, I suggest using Fooyan footballers by division, Fooyan football people by division, Fooyan soccer players by division, and the like.
gidonb (
talk)
00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as formulated. Agree fully with User:P Aculeius. I also agree that the current naming convention is awkward; it should be "People from country by county/province/state". -- P 1 9 9✉02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You seem to be waiting for this to be closed, after which an admin would have to list all the categories for a bot to un-tag them; and later you would have to tag them all again for a revised proposal using demonyms. Surely it would be more efficient to agree a compromise here? If you spell out an Alt-1 proposal with a few examples, you may gain a consensus. –
FayenaticLondon12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. Demonyms are a fraud. They pretend to be one thing but are something else. In wiki land, they are put forward as meaning "a citizen of the sovereign state of Foo". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not true. This happens when it means "is usually resident in state Foo" or "spent his career working in Foo" or "is an ethnic Fooian". A "French Polynesian" is not a citizen of a sovereign state; he is a resident of an overseas territory (AKA colony) and possibly also a citizen of Republic Of France. In the case of a man born in 1950 on the island of
Ireland, he may self-identify as "British" (if born in
Belfast for example) or as "Irish" (if born in
Dublin for example). It's also complicated by the fact that some people born in Belfast self-identify as "Irish". And then what to call people born before the establishment of the
Republic of Ireland? In reality there are often two tree structures: by country and by nationality. Wiki should stop pretending that one comprehends the other. In some cases it does, in other cases it does not. The use of the demonyn permits this fraud to flourish - it is a grammatical fudge and should be stamped out.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london, it's no problem, really I have should have done it myself. I would prefer to close this and start a new nomination to make the consensus clearer, but you're opposed to that, so I think relisting and providing a collapsed list of the alt nomination would be best.
Qwerfjkltalk21:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support this proposal. While I don't think there's any problem with using demonyms with the names of U.S. states, this formulation still addresses the chief issue with the original proposal, in that the category names will mean what people expect them to mean, and define a logical scope: people from X rather than in X. There might be rare instances when the latter formulation makes sense, but readers will nearly always be looking for people from X.
P Aculeius (
talk)
13:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm concerned about, chiefly. While I think that "West Virginians" is as clear and more concise than "people from West Virginia", it has approximately the same scope. The names of "People from U.S. states" categories can always be discussed in future, but this proposal was originally about "athletes in place by subdivision of place", and for reasons not clear to me included "people in U.S. states...", as well as general categories following the same formulation everywhere else. It makes no sense at all to use general categories for people in rather than people from, since people are movable, and readers will almost invariably want to find people who either originate from or reside in a particular place, irrespective of their current location. For purposes of this discussion, "Fooians" and "People from Foo" are near equivalents; "People in Foo" is the problem, because it's obviously meant to be the same as "People from Foo", but isn't.
P Aculeius (
talk)
01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
(Thanks for the ping but) oppose. I thought the formulation most people (myself included) noted their preference for above was Association football people from Japan by prefecture, etc. Why not have that as the alt proposal? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Note Fayentic's comment above. (Posted after yours.)
Support alt as much as I support the original nomination. The splitter is at the end, this was what the discussion was about. A discussion about fooian people versus people from foo can be done some other time.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It was not clear to me how it was ambiguous but if it is clear for other editors then just go for it. I am not opposing either, that is what matters most, I guess.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
In case my replies above are unclear, what I'm supporting is any solution that uses either "people from Foo" or "Fooians", as opposed to "People in Foo", which in my opinion is an unhelpful formulation for most categories, because people are mobile, and readers will nearly always be looking for people who come from or reside in a place, irrespective of where they may be at a particular time. As Marcocapelle says, "Fooians" versus "People from Foo" can be discussed some other time, and (I hope) perhaps in discussions more focused on a smaller selection of categories—this started with a very specific and focused number, and somehow expanded to encompass the rest of the universe. If it hadn't somehow engulfed all categories for people from U.S. states, I wouldn't even have been aware of the discussion.
P Aculeius (
talk)
01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose prefer the current system with the splitter in the middle and country at the end, rather than the beginning, as it seems more natural. Countries being at the end would also be more helpful when searching for categories, "People/Sportpeople/footballers by county/stage/region" seems easier to search for to me, than by having demonyms or having countries in the middle.
Happily888 (
talk)
11:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I understand your argument. You say the splitter s the middle is more "natural". Why? Most categories have the splitter at the end, which makes sense logically.
You say categories at the end would be more helpful when searching. That seems dubious to me.
And again you bring up this searching argument, wwhich still seems dubious. I doubt people will struggle to search the categories whichever way they are ordered.
After all, even though in the nomination all the categories are listed together, they are in fact for the most part totally separate. Nobody is going to have to run their eyes down this whole list, in all likelihood there will only be a few dozen at best that they'll have to contend with.
Qwerfjkltalk21:29, 8 September 2023 (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:Politicians from New South Wales
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.