January 24
Category:Women articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Nonstandard, empty, already covered under "Biography" category. Numberguy6 ( talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, there is no equivalent category for any other Wikipedia language versions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Homes of United States Founding Fathers
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers
Category:Strikes (protest)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Category:Strikes (protest)
Universal Monsters
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Universal Monsters
Category:Non-fiction
- 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: no consensus. An RM should be opened to discuss this.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Non-fiction to Category:Nonfiction
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the main article's name. Per its talk page—"There is consensus for the present title." This is a large-scale, albeit overdue, renaming that would affect hundreds of subcategories which will likely need to be listed below. Given its scope and a decade-old consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3#Category:Nonfiction, a full discussion is required. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose the rename of both the article and the category. This is an Engvar issue and the article should never have been moved. What is overdue is moving Nonfiction (US) back to Non-fiction (UK). The rule is that the variant chosen at first should be retained (and used in the article). Oculi ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose — the correct ngram syntax is overwhemingly "non-fiction" for both American English 2019 and British English 2019, all the way back to 1500 CE. Also, the closing administrator should move the main article back to
non-fiction.
This is not a US versus UK WP:ENGVAR issue.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The correct formatted Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Οἶδα ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- That same Google Trends shows them equal as recently as 2004. Google Trends problem is a US sampling bias. That same Trends shows that "nonfiction" is almost entirely continental US and Alaska, while "non-fiction" is Canada and everywhere around the world.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - My most recent copy of NYTimes MoS is 2015, but they remove hyphens for all "non[-]" prefixes, and explicitly for "nonprofit". Thank goodness we haven't gone down that rathole for Wikipedia.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - My educated guess is that dropping hyphens in Google searches is mostly due to iPhone on-screen "keyboards" missing hyphen. Android Gboard has both hyphen and underscore.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- @
Οἶδα: I'm not an expert on Ngram syntax, but I saw an instruction there to use parentheses rather than square brackets,
and this shows in a far greater usage of the hyphenated form. [1]– Fayenatic London 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- @
Fayenatic london: Per Ngram
[2], with the parentheses you are not searching for "non-fiction", you are subtracting "fiction" from "non". So of course the usage will be dramatically greater. To further prove this, merely searching the term "non"
[3] shows a comparatively similar usage to your parenthetical "(non-fiction)".
Οἶδα (
talk)
20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! οἶδας. Oops, reading on, I now see that this was already explained below. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Per Ngram
[2], with the parentheses you are not searching for "non-fiction", you are subtracting "fiction" from "non". So of course the usage will be dramatically greater. To further prove this, merely searching the term "non"
[3] shows a comparatively similar usage to your parenthetical "(non-fiction)".
Οἶδα (
talk)
20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Οἶδα: I'm not an expert on Ngram syntax, but I saw an instruction there to use parentheses rather than square brackets,
- That same Google Trends shows them equal as recently as 2004. Google Trends problem is a US sampling bias. That same Trends shows that "nonfiction" is almost entirely continental US and Alaska, while "non-fiction" is Canada and everywhere around the world.
- Comment For consistency, if we move this category we will need to move hundreds of other categories affecting thousands of articles - see Category:Non-fiction writers by century as a small sample of that tree of categories.
- Also, for information, I looked this up in Oxford English Dictionary, full online edition. It has an entry for "non-fiction" (as noun and adjective), to which you go if you search on "nonfiction", but doesn't explicitly mention "nonfiction" even as a variant - though of the five quotes illustrating the use as a noun, the more recent two (1951 and 1995) spell it without the hyphen, as "nonfiction". Pam D 09:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- And further information:
Nonfiction was created in 2002, presumably as
Non-fiction as that is the form used in its lead.
Logs show it being moved from "Nonfiction" to "Non-fiction" in 2006, 2010, and 2015, having been moved the other way beforehand each time. It was last moved to
Nonfiction in 2019, in a "bold" move after no recent discussion; given the history, this was not an uncontroversial move so should not have been done without a proper RM discussion.
Pam
D
09:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. Should be used as reverse precedent to reverse the bold move.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. Should be used as reverse precedent to reverse the bold move.
- Oppose: Having been neutral on the initial discussion I have come round to opposing this move and believing that we should move the article back to its longstanding title, although this will need a proper RM as it is obviously not a noncontroversial move. Such a RM was recently initiated, although the proposer hoped for it to be opposed to establish a consensus for the non-hyphenated title, and was procedurally closed. I think it should be reopened as a serious proposal to revert the undiscussed, therefore improper, 2019 move, and revert to the long-established title of Non-fiction. Pam D 09:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support: @ William Allen Simpson: You are incorrect about the ngram syntax, the correct syntax is "nonfiction,[non - fiction]" [4]. Your "nonfiction,(non-fiction)" means "compare nonfiction to non minus fiction", and there are many more instances of the word "non" than both "nonfiction" and "fiction" so it looks falsely like "non-fiction" is more used when, in fact, it is not. Nominator is correct. — Alalch E. 09:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the possible correction. I've removed my syntax attempt, but not my conclusions. It confirms that this is not how we were taught in schools during my American 1960s education. 500 years of hyphenation should not be thrown away for a few decades of American recentism.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - About ENGVAR: Nonfiction is much better from the standpoint of
WP:COMMONALITY. Nonfiction is fine in BE (and is rising in usage while non-fiction is stagnating), but non-fiction is not really fine in AE, as the Google Ngram in my comment (the one with the correct syntax) shows. —
Alalch E.
10:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nonfiction is not at all fine in BE. There are plenty of examples of incorrect usage of English wherever one looks: correct English is not determined by a popular vote.
Oculi (
talk)
14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment, but in this case it's really fine enough, for example the Guardian uses it over the hyphenated version (
The 100 best nonfiction books of all time: the full list,
Nonfiction to look out for in 2023). They made the switch several years ago (
example from 2011), and they did so consciously. It's accepted in mainstream publishing as a more modern spelling. —
Alalch E.
14:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Guardian should be ashamed of itself. At least the BBC knows better: Harry's book. Oculi ( talk) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment, but in this case it's really fine enough, for example the Guardian uses it over the hyphenated version (
The 100 best nonfiction books of all time: the full list,
Nonfiction to look out for in 2023). They made the switch several years ago (
example from 2011), and they did so consciously. It's accepted in mainstream publishing as a more modern spelling. —
Alalch E.
14:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nonfiction is not at all fine in BE. There are plenty of examples of incorrect usage of English wherever one looks: correct English is not determined by a popular vote.
Oculi (
talk)
14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes,
the Guardian explicitly decided on "nonfiction". While I've given the Guardian an annual contribution for many years and read them more often than the NYTimes or WaPo, they also recapitalize otherwise all capital agency names. So, not perfect style example. Guardian claims to use Collins, but
Collins is "non-fiction" and has plenty of Guardian examples up to 2016. Moreover,
Cambridge is also "non-fiction".
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes,
the Guardian explicitly decided on "nonfiction". While I've given the Guardian an annual contribution for many years and read them more often than the NYTimes or WaPo, they also recapitalize otherwise all capital agency names. So, not perfect style example. Guardian claims to use Collins, but
Collins is "non-fiction" and has plenty of Guardian examples up to 2016. Moreover,
Cambridge is also "non-fiction".
- Thanks for the possible correction. I've removed my syntax attempt, but not my conclusions. It confirms that this is not how we were taught in schools during my American 1960s education. 500 years of hyphenation should not be thrown away for a few decades of American recentism.
- Support renaming category, per increasingly common usage. Oppose moving article to the hyphenated form. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Conditional vote: if any of the opposers starts an RM to get the article renamed back, this category discussion can have a procedural close pending the outcome of the RM. If none of the opposers will start an RM, the category can be renamed per the (then unchallenged) article title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There really needs to be consensus for the article first, seems like there is major disagreement still. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:American military uniforms
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American military uniforms to Category:United States military uniforms
- Nominator's rationale: Reason is to simply be consistent with other similar categories such as Category: United States military badges, etc. Sm8900 ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Examples by nom. of similar style for other similar pages and categories:
-- Sm8900 ( talk) 14:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just a question for clarification: when do we use American and when do we use United States? I am asking because lots of categories use American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- excellent question. my impression is that the vast majority of categories for governmental organizations, national symbols, national infrastructure, national industries, national activities, etc use "United States." such as eg Category:Firefighting in the United States, Category: Local government in the United States, Category:Architecture in the United States, Category: Manufacturing in the United States. Category: States of the United States, Category: Parks in the United States, Category: Baseball teams in the United States.
- However, for categories for individuals, or for artistic works, the majority of such categories seem to use "American," such as Category: American authors, Category: American people, Category:American businesspeople. Category: American novels, Category: American films, Category: American short stories, Category: American plays, Category: American art, Category: American design.
- However as some odd exceptions to the above, take a look a these. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Arts in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Arts festivals in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Visual arts in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Performing arts in the United States. I suppose the rationale might be that these refer to industries, while the others above refer to creative individuals and their work?
- So therefore, in the area specifically of government, military, industry, I do feel there is a conistent delineation of some real effectiveness. so my proposal still stands. I hope that reply is helpful, to your helpful question.
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- as long as we're discussing categories.... anybody want a
Hat?
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I find sailor caps very daper. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- as long as we're discussing categories.... anybody want a
Hat?
- So therefore, in the area specifically of government, military, industry, I do feel there is a conistent delineation of some real effectiveness. so my proposal still stands. I hope that reply is helpful, to your helpful question.
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support To align with sister categories. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Paradise Jam Tournament
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Paradise Jam Tournament to Category:Paradise Jam
- Nominator's rationale: Looking to match the main article, Paradise Jam which was moved per WP:COMMONNAME. fuzzy510 ( talk) 07:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support, not exactly WP:C2D because the article was moved today, but the other articles in the category also do not have Tournament in the title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Ancient Indian materialist philosophers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only four philosophers in this subcategory, no other subdivisions of the category other than by year, not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. - car chasm ( talk) 04:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, it is also barely a defining characteristic (only for Ajita Kesakambali). Do not merge, the articles are already in e.g. Category:6th-century BC Indian philosophers if appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Men's sport in the Philippines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category and a duplicate of Category:Men's sports in the Philippines. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Next time, just tag it CSD C1, an empty category doesn't require a week-long discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Memorial Cup 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The Memorial Cup is a junior hockey league championship and is thus non-defining and fails WP:OCAWARD. A consensus has developed through a variety of AFDs that team championships are non-defining for individual players. This is particularly true for youth championships. User:Namiba 00:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
January 24
Category:Women articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Nonstandard, empty, already covered under "Biography" category. Numberguy6 ( talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, there is no equivalent category for any other Wikipedia language versions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Homes of United States Founding Fathers
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers
Category:Strikes (protest)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Category:Strikes (protest)
Universal Monsters
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 1#Universal Monsters
Category:Non-fiction
- 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: no consensus. An RM should be opened to discuss this.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Non-fiction to Category:Nonfiction
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the main article's name. Per its talk page—"There is consensus for the present title." This is a large-scale, albeit overdue, renaming that would affect hundreds of subcategories which will likely need to be listed below. Given its scope and a decade-old consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3#Category:Nonfiction, a full discussion is required. Οἶδα ( talk) 23:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose the rename of both the article and the category. This is an Engvar issue and the article should never have been moved. What is overdue is moving Nonfiction (US) back to Non-fiction (UK). The rule is that the variant chosen at first should be retained (and used in the article). Oculi ( talk) 00:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose — the correct ngram syntax is overwhemingly "non-fiction" for both American English 2019 and British English 2019, all the way back to 1500 CE. Also, the closing administrator should move the main article back to
non-fiction.
This is not a US versus UK WP:ENGVAR issue.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The correct formatted Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Οἶδα ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- That same Google Trends shows them equal as recently as 2004. Google Trends problem is a US sampling bias. That same Trends shows that "nonfiction" is almost entirely continental US and Alaska, while "non-fiction" is Canada and everywhere around the world.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - My most recent copy of NYTimes MoS is 2015, but they remove hyphens for all "non[-]" prefixes, and explicitly for "nonprofit". Thank goodness we haven't gone down that rathole for Wikipedia.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - My educated guess is that dropping hyphens in Google searches is mostly due to iPhone on-screen "keyboards" missing hyphen. Android Gboard has both hyphen and underscore.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- @
Οἶδα: I'm not an expert on Ngram syntax, but I saw an instruction there to use parentheses rather than square brackets,
and this shows in a far greater usage of the hyphenated form. [1]– Fayenatic London 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- @
Fayenatic london: Per Ngram
[2], with the parentheses you are not searching for "non-fiction", you are subtracting "fiction" from "non". So of course the usage will be dramatically greater. To further prove this, merely searching the term "non"
[3] shows a comparatively similar usage to your parenthetical "(non-fiction)".
Οἶδα (
talk)
20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! οἶδας. Oops, reading on, I now see that this was already explained below. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Fayenatic london: Per Ngram
[2], with the parentheses you are not searching for "non-fiction", you are subtracting "fiction" from "non". So of course the usage will be dramatically greater. To further prove this, merely searching the term "non"
[3] shows a comparatively similar usage to your parenthetical "(non-fiction)".
Οἶδα (
talk)
20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @
Οἶδα: I'm not an expert on Ngram syntax, but I saw an instruction there to use parentheses rather than square brackets,
- That same Google Trends shows them equal as recently as 2004. Google Trends problem is a US sampling bias. That same Trends shows that "nonfiction" is almost entirely continental US and Alaska, while "non-fiction" is Canada and everywhere around the world.
- Comment For consistency, if we move this category we will need to move hundreds of other categories affecting thousands of articles - see Category:Non-fiction writers by century as a small sample of that tree of categories.
- Also, for information, I looked this up in Oxford English Dictionary, full online edition. It has an entry for "non-fiction" (as noun and adjective), to which you go if you search on "nonfiction", but doesn't explicitly mention "nonfiction" even as a variant - though of the five quotes illustrating the use as a noun, the more recent two (1951 and 1995) spell it without the hyphen, as "nonfiction". Pam D 09:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- And further information:
Nonfiction was created in 2002, presumably as
Non-fiction as that is the form used in its lead.
Logs show it being moved from "Nonfiction" to "Non-fiction" in 2006, 2010, and 2015, having been moved the other way beforehand each time. It was last moved to
Nonfiction in 2019, in a "bold" move after no recent discussion; given the history, this was not an uncontroversial move so should not have been done without a proper RM discussion.
Pam
D
09:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. Should be used as reverse precedent to reverse the bold move.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research. Should be used as reverse precedent to reverse the bold move.
- Oppose: Having been neutral on the initial discussion I have come round to opposing this move and believing that we should move the article back to its longstanding title, although this will need a proper RM as it is obviously not a noncontroversial move. Such a RM was recently initiated, although the proposer hoped for it to be opposed to establish a consensus for the non-hyphenated title, and was procedurally closed. I think it should be reopened as a serious proposal to revert the undiscussed, therefore improper, 2019 move, and revert to the long-established title of Non-fiction. Pam D 09:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support: @ William Allen Simpson: You are incorrect about the ngram syntax, the correct syntax is "nonfiction,[non - fiction]" [4]. Your "nonfiction,(non-fiction)" means "compare nonfiction to non minus fiction", and there are many more instances of the word "non" than both "nonfiction" and "fiction" so it looks falsely like "non-fiction" is more used when, in fact, it is not. Nominator is correct. — Alalch E. 09:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the possible correction. I've removed my syntax attempt, but not my conclusions. It confirms that this is not how we were taught in schools during my American 1960s education. 500 years of hyphenation should not be thrown away for a few decades of American recentism.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) - About ENGVAR: Nonfiction is much better from the standpoint of
WP:COMMONALITY. Nonfiction is fine in BE (and is rising in usage while non-fiction is stagnating), but non-fiction is not really fine in AE, as the Google Ngram in my comment (the one with the correct syntax) shows. —
Alalch E.
10:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nonfiction is not at all fine in BE. There are plenty of examples of incorrect usage of English wherever one looks: correct English is not determined by a popular vote.
Oculi (
talk)
14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment, but in this case it's really fine enough, for example the Guardian uses it over the hyphenated version (
The 100 best nonfiction books of all time: the full list,
Nonfiction to look out for in 2023). They made the switch several years ago (
example from 2011), and they did so consciously. It's accepted in mainstream publishing as a more modern spelling. —
Alalch E.
14:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Guardian should be ashamed of itself. At least the BBC knows better: Harry's book. Oculi ( talk) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment, but in this case it's really fine enough, for example the Guardian uses it over the hyphenated version (
The 100 best nonfiction books of all time: the full list,
Nonfiction to look out for in 2023). They made the switch several years ago (
example from 2011), and they did so consciously. It's accepted in mainstream publishing as a more modern spelling. —
Alalch E.
14:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nonfiction is not at all fine in BE. There are plenty of examples of incorrect usage of English wherever one looks: correct English is not determined by a popular vote.
Oculi (
talk)
14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes,
the Guardian explicitly decided on "nonfiction". While I've given the Guardian an annual contribution for many years and read them more often than the NYTimes or WaPo, they also recapitalize otherwise all capital agency names. So, not perfect style example. Guardian claims to use Collins, but
Collins is "non-fiction" and has plenty of Guardian examples up to 2016. Moreover,
Cambridge is also "non-fiction".
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes,
the Guardian explicitly decided on "nonfiction". While I've given the Guardian an annual contribution for many years and read them more often than the NYTimes or WaPo, they also recapitalize otherwise all capital agency names. So, not perfect style example. Guardian claims to use Collins, but
Collins is "non-fiction" and has plenty of Guardian examples up to 2016. Moreover,
Cambridge is also "non-fiction".
- Thanks for the possible correction. I've removed my syntax attempt, but not my conclusions. It confirms that this is not how we were taught in schools during my American 1960s education. 500 years of hyphenation should not be thrown away for a few decades of American recentism.
- Support renaming category, per increasingly common usage. Oppose moving article to the hyphenated form. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Conditional vote: if any of the opposers starts an RM to get the article renamed back, this category discussion can have a procedural close pending the outcome of the RM. If none of the opposers will start an RM, the category can be renamed per the (then unchallenged) article title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There really needs to be consensus for the article first, seems like there is major disagreement still. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:American military uniforms
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:American military uniforms to Category:United States military uniforms
- Nominator's rationale: Reason is to simply be consistent with other similar categories such as Category: United States military badges, etc. Sm8900 ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Examples by nom. of similar style for other similar pages and categories:
-- Sm8900 ( talk) 14:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just a question for clarification: when do we use American and when do we use United States? I am asking because lots of categories use American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- excellent question. my impression is that the vast majority of categories for governmental organizations, national symbols, national infrastructure, national industries, national activities, etc use "United States." such as eg Category:Firefighting in the United States, Category: Local government in the United States, Category:Architecture in the United States, Category: Manufacturing in the United States. Category: States of the United States, Category: Parks in the United States, Category: Baseball teams in the United States.
- However, for categories for individuals, or for artistic works, the majority of such categories seem to use "American," such as Category: American authors, Category: American people, Category:American businesspeople. Category: American novels, Category: American films, Category: American short stories, Category: American plays, Category: American art, Category: American design.
- However as some odd exceptions to the above, take a look a these. ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Arts in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Arts festivals in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Visual arts in the United States,‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Performing arts in the United States. I suppose the rationale might be that these refer to industries, while the others above refer to creative individuals and their work?
- So therefore, in the area specifically of government, military, industry, I do feel there is a conistent delineation of some real effectiveness. so my proposal still stands. I hope that reply is helpful, to your helpful question.
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- as long as we're discussing categories.... anybody want a
Hat?
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I find sailor caps very daper. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- as long as we're discussing categories.... anybody want a
Hat?
- So therefore, in the area specifically of government, military, industry, I do feel there is a conistent delineation of some real effectiveness. so my proposal still stands. I hope that reply is helpful, to your helpful question.
Sm8900 (
talk)
17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support To align with sister categories. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Paradise Jam Tournament
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure)
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Paradise Jam Tournament to Category:Paradise Jam
- Nominator's rationale: Looking to match the main article, Paradise Jam which was moved per WP:COMMONNAME. fuzzy510 ( talk) 07:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support, not exactly WP:C2D because the article was moved today, but the other articles in the category also do not have Tournament in the title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Ancient Indian materialist philosophers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - only four philosophers in this subcategory, no other subdivisions of the category other than by year, not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. - car chasm ( talk) 04:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, it is also barely a defining characteristic (only for Ajita Kesakambali). Do not merge, the articles are already in e.g. Category:6th-century BC Indian philosophers if appropriate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Men's sport in the Philippines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category and a duplicate of Category:Men's sports in the Philippines. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Next time, just tag it CSD C1, an empty category doesn't require a week-long discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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:Memorial Cup 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.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The Memorial Cup is a junior hockey league championship and is thus non-defining and fails WP:OCAWARD. A consensus has developed through a variety of AFDs that team championships are non-defining for individual players. This is particularly true for youth championships. User:Namiba 00:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.