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.
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.
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.
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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
It would be confusing if we would have a gap in 1794 while the adjacent categories still exist, even if that situation is only temporary. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, I suggest you read WP:MERGE. Are you seriously suggesting we retain 130-plus categories which each contain a single redirect only? WP:PROMERGE stipulates that everything (italics in source) is replaced by the redirect notice. Everything includes categories. Nowhere does it say categories must or should be retained. The merger was proposed, discussed, amended and passed by three participants. How many people "nod through" the typical CfD? 3 or 4, perhaps? No Great Shaker (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I withdraw the nominations for 1737, 1744 and 1794 to be dealt with when their turn comes in the sequence? If we are agreed on merging as the solution for 1727 and 1732, then this establishes a principle that can apply to the rest in due course. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
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: Grammar fixes. I feel that to be using the labels "women" and "men" before the occupation for a majority of category pages sounds like a misuse of grammar and poorly-written English. I would actually recommend nominating every single one of these category pages for renaming. I nominated Category:Women centenarians and Category:Men centenarians just as a starter. 20SS00 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Firstly, there's no grammatic problem with the current names; secondly, by making them "female" and "male" means that we're extending it to include non-humans. Do we include the male Tu'i Malila and female Harriet?Grutness...wha?09:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being blond has special cultural significance in many countries and is widely celebrated too. As is being bald. According to WP:TRIVIALCAT, "For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivial." One's age is a physical characteristic, not part of one's career or origins. The age to which one lives is non-defining except in the most extraordinary circumstances.--User:Namiba13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many kinds of extraordinary physical characteristics, none of which we use to categorize human beings. Having hundreds of tattoos is also extraordinary. Moreover, if you look at the first four entries to Category:Men centenarians, none of them even note their centenarian status. How can something be defining if it is consistently not even mentioned in articles?--User:Namiba11:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I have checked women too and the articles do not prominently mention the centenarian status. Apparently only supercentenarians are extraordinary. Delete after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Namiba and Marcocapelle. Especially, the intersection of gender and longevity seems trivial (especially for women, which form the very large majority of centenarians). Place Clichy (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose women and men are the accepted terms for adult humans. All centenarians are by definition humans so this makes sense. There are huge differences in life expactancy for men and women, and the factors that cause these differences are very much sex specific (up until about 1900 <I could be off by a few decades> women had a lower life expactancy, but this was entirely driven by deaths from child birth, a woman who lived past her child bearing age had a much higher life expectancy than a man of the same age, so it makes sense to seperate this by sex. This is by sex, since much of the effects is that men are biologically more likely to die from certain diseases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Naval battles involving the Duchy of Gaeta[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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: Consistency. Some categories, such as Category:United States political party color templates, use American English. Inconsistency prevents the use in templates. American English is preferred here as the naming scheme for the templates categorized is /meta/color, so the current naming is inconsistent with that and unexpected. It makes more sense to rename these categories than the templates (as there are far more templates than categories, and renaming the templates would have far more potential for breakage). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion and survey (Political party colour templates)[edit]
add your comments and !votes here
Oppose and possibly procedural keep. A real trainwreck of a nomination. Many of the countries nominated use the word colour. Others have colour because they are in Europe or Africa, where the British spelling is often used in Wikipedia. Others are in Asia and the Americas, where the non-Commonwealth speaking ones probably should have color, because we tend to use that on Wikipedia. But in all cases, unless there is a definite local usage, these were named by the creator, and Wikipedia's "first come, first spelt" rule applies. Propose these separately, and it'll be easier to yay or nay them individually, but there are too many which should have "colour" here to even begin to consider this as a batch nomination. Grutness...wha?06:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: I'm sorry, but the point is consistency. I honestly wouldn't mind switching these all to "colour" - though I think the reasons I have laid out make it clear why "color" is preferable - but we should use the same naming for every country, regardless of what the local engvar is. These aren't content categories, they're maintenance categories - being able to programmatically generate the name is a useful property this scheme currently lacks due to inconsistency. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're understanding my goal here, and I'm fully aware of ENGVAR. I'd like to be able to add these categories by passing a single parameter to a template - it makes sense to name them consistently. And again, every template is named with /color. It does not make sense to have that be inconsistent. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not a choice between consistent and inconsistent but rather a choice between one form of consistency (within the maintenance tree) versus another form of consistency (within every country). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for consistency. The value being stored in these attributes in not "colour"; in every case it is "color". The nominator's case is poorly made: this is not about using one national variety of English. It is about naming the categories after the pages which they group, i.e. /meta/color templates, which are themselves named after the Web colors which are specified in CSS as "color". Note especially that these are not content categories: they hold only templates, and are not intended only for internal use by Wikipedia editors, rather than by readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per BrownHairedGirl. This has nothing to do with an attempt to prefer one English variety over another, but instead is making these categories' names reflect their contents, which are all "color" templates by virtue of including the word "color" in their names (even in regions that don't use American English) * Pppery *it has begun...16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newystats: can you please explain why you think their rationales were convincing? These categories are named differently from the templates which they contain, all of which are spelled "color". There are categories spelled both with "color" and "colour", so if we want these to be accessibly systematically, some must be renamed. Are you opposed to these being able to be accessed systematically? Or do you think the ones named with "color" should be renamed to "colour", even though all the contained templates are spelled "color" and the underlying property is "color"? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is an Engvar issue. There is no priority for American English. There is no reason why the American spelling should not be used (or retained) where it is the normal for of English (Phillippines Liberia and the Americas). This is the normal ENGVAR solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: did you actually look at the categories? Every single one contains templates spelled with "color". Spelling the categories "colour" makes no sense. The property contained is "color". This is not an engvar issue but one of consistency and accuracy for something which is not reader facing but maintenance. Opposing this makes maintenance harder, not easier, for no benefit at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So your statement that the CSS code is appropriately localised is in fact, complete nonsense. Thanks for clarifying that. The CSS is spelt "color". The templates are spelt "color". Who exactly do you intend to help, and how, by using a difft name for the categories? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it has been pointed out above, these are maintenance categories used by editors rather than content categories used by ordinary Wikipedia readers so what's the harm in using the British spelling? Is it actually causing additional work for editors? How is it making maintenance harder?--Obi2canibe (talk)12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: it makes maintenance harder in two ways:
by making it difficult to use templates or automated tools to populate the categories. Consistency of naming makes automation much easier.
by confusing editors who use the categories and/or templates: all but 5 of the templates are called "color", but some of the categories which group them are called "colour".
How on earth does that mismatch help anybody?
If the UK templates were called "colour", then there would be a good case for speling the categories the same way. But they are called "color".
Is it actually causing additional work for editors? I don't enjoy dealing with categories - the only reason I made this nomination was because this naming inconsistency impeded my other work. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This being a maintenance category and to be maintained primarily thru automation. This is not something that a random user who clicks on the search result and lands on WP would see anyway. Not even the regular editors who edit the articles and use the talk pages would have any kind of usage of this level of maintaining category. Automation is computer code, which requires a level of consistency for easier maintenance. Surely, one can put all the cases, but that's just extra unnecessary work and uses effort in digging down all the spelling variations. The ENGVAR is supposed to help readers by using the localized language and not an adherent for maintenance, which is an internal behind-the-scenes thing. Since they categorize meta/color which is spelled to be in sync with CSS' color, which is what one has to write in computer code, and not their national variant of English; the preferred spelling for the category would be to use just that, for consistency. I couldn't answer why W3C decided to use the American variant, and not a British or the other, but we ended up with color. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackattack1597: did you review the other comments left here? This is explicitly done to make maintenance easier. The inconsistency is confusing and makes maintenance harder for absolutely no benefit to anyone. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 18#Category:German former Hindus
