Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8

Loughs of Northern Ireland

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates of Category:Lakes of Northern Ireland and its subcats; e.g. Category:Loughs of County Tyrone‎ duplicates Category:Lakes of County Tyrone‎.

Northern Ireland is a subcat of both UK and Ireland and in each case the convention is "lakes": Category:Lakes of the United Kingdom by country & Category:Lakes of Ireland. This "loughs" set is parented in neither, which may be why the duplication happened.

I have already checked that all pages are in the corresponding lakes category, so no need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Northern Ireland has been notified.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified.[2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – needless duplication. "Lakes of" categories are sufficient. NI lakes are already in both categories, so minimal change needed. Declangi (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have Category:Lochs of Scotland so why not Category:Loughs of Northern Ireland? All except one lake in the latter is a 'lough'. I'm inclined to suggest 'Lakes' should be merged into 'Loughs' in this instance. Sionk (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sionk: the use of "lakes" vs "loughs" on Irish categories was discussed extensively at CfD 2018 April 7#Lakes of the Republic of Ireland, where the consensus was to accept the piles of evidence I presented that Irish usage prefers "Lakes" as the collective noun.
  I would have included the Northern Ireland "loughs" cats in that nomination if I had been aware of their existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Data. To test actual usage in Northern Ireland, I did the following searches in reliable sources using Fermanagh because it has 3 major lakes (Lough Melvin & the 2 Lough Ernes). The results show an overwhelming preference for "Lakes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	"Lakes in County Fermanagh"	"Lakes of County Fermanagh"	"Lakes in Fermanagh"	"Lakes of Fermanagh"	Total Lakes	"Loughs in Fermanagh"	"Loughs of Fermanagh"	Total Loughs
Gbooks	14 hits	12 hits	12 hits	175 hits	215	4 hits	5 hits	9
Gscholar	1 hits	15 hits	4 hits	4 hits	24	2 hits	1 hits	3
JSTOR	1 hits	4 hits	1 hits	7 hits	13	2 hits	0 hits	2

I really haven't the faintest idea how these random esoteric Google searches prove anything. Fancy finding any books or sources about lakes or loughs in Northern Ireland? Wouldn't you consider Google maps and Ordnance Survey to be far more reliable proof of what the lakes of Northern Ireland are called? Sionk (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sionk: random esoteric???? What earth are you on about?
  Those searches are neither random nor esoteric. As set iut at WP:COMMONNAME they a comprehensive tests of which collective noun is used in WP:reliable sources: same set of phrases applied to both loughs and lakes and repeated on 3 sets of sources. The result is exceptionally clearcut.
  Maps are utterly useless because they do not use text to describe a set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether people use the word 'lough' or 'lake' to describe these bodies of water in Northern Ireland, not whether they use the titles of Wikipedia categories "Loughs of Fermanagh" etc. I would say newspaper articles such as this one in the Belfast Telegraph and this one in The Independent (London)clearly show the word 'lough' is used in the English language to describe these bodies of water. For that matter, there's an official body called the Loughs Agency. This is not a word solely used in Irish Gaelic, but commonly used in English. Sionk (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ice planets

Propose merging Category:Fictional ice planets to Category:Fictional terrestrial planets

Nominator's rationale: I strongly suspect that this category cannot grow any larger, though I didn’t look as thoroughly as last time. One of these, Gethen, is not truly an ice planet any more than our Earth is/has been. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the low article count, there is no need to subcategorise from the parent at the moment IMO. SFB 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge, also with Category:Ice planets in fiction. Grutness...wha? 02:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HC Ambri-Piotta players

Propose renaming Category:HC Ambri-Piotta players to Category:HC Ambrì-Piotta players

Nominator's rationale: article name is HC Ambrì-Piotta Joeykai (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as speedy rename to match parent article. SFB 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rayne Red Sox

Propose deleting Category:Rayne Red Sox - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category is for a defunct team that existed for just one year and whose article page is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meteorological phenomena

Propose merging Category:Meteorological phenomena to Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomena

Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't have "meteorological phenomena" in two categories. We should either merge Category:Meteorological phenomena into Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomena, or move meteorological phenomena from the latter to the former, and make the latter just ~~Category:Basic meteorological concepts~~ Category:Meteorological concepts. Srleffler (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support rescope (i.e., second option) of latter category to just Category:Meteorological concepts. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge the measurable natural phenomena should remain in "Meteorological phenomena" as a phenomenon is a very specific type of concept. Non-phenomena should be grouped and renamed under Category:Meteorological concepts – I'm not sure what the addition of "basic" is doing here, especially as a non-"basic" parent does not exist. SFB 21:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. --Srleffler (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. My comments amended accordingly. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rescope per SFB. --Qetuth (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]