Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 7

< April 6	April 8 >

April 7

Category:People from Forest Hills, Pennsylvania

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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Forest Hills, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I did a search and only found one other person with a connection to Forest Hills with a WP article, so WP:SMALLCAT it is. I also think I found the most popular name for cemeteries in the US! Grutness...wha? 03:06, 8 April 2018 (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.

Lakes of the Republic of Ireland‎

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. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: per convention of Category:Lakes and (AFAICS) all of its by-country subcats, including Category:Lakes of Scotland, parent Category:Lakes of Ireland and sibling Category:Lakes of Northern Ireland ... and to avoid ambiguity with Category:Sea loughs of the Republic of Ireland

As in Northern Ireland, most inland bodies of water in the Republic of Ireland‎ are known as "Lough Foo". Same in Scotland, though the Scots use the Scots gaelic spelling "Loch".

However, while most Irish inland bodies of water are individually called "Lough Foo" in English, they are collectively referred to in English as "lakes".

See the following searches in reliable sources for Lakes/Loughs in Ireland:

	"Lakes in Ireland"	"Loughs in Ireland"
Gbooks	271 hits	157 hits
Gscholar	659 hits	29 hits
JSTOR	100 hits	7 hits

... and for Lakes/Loughs of' Ireland:

	"Lakes of Ireland"	"Loughs of Ireland"
Gbooks	260 hits	260 hits
Gscholar	144 hits	93 hits
JSTOR	49 hits	30 hits

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Scotland does indeed have Category:Lakes of Scotland, but all that is in there is two categories, for reservoir and freshwater lochs - and there is also a separate Category:Lochs of Scotland. Surely Ireland should be organised the same way:

Category:Lakes of the Republic of Ireland containing Category:Freshwater loughs of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Reservoirs of the Republic of Ireland

Category:Loughs of the Republic of Ireland containing Category:Freshwater loughs of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Sea loughs of the Republic of Ireland

The same would hold on the county level.

I also wonder whether those sources for English language usage of the terms lake and lough reflected global usage, rather than local usage. I suspect that most hits from .ie sites would be for "loughs". If so, Loughs should be used. Grutness...wha? 02:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Grutness: I think it is the inverse of what you suggest. I have never encountered Irish usage describing them collectively as "loughs"; always "lakes". I think the collective use of "loughs" is non-Irish writers making a well-intended but mistaken attempt to use what they wrongly believe to be Irish terminology. I will try if I can devise some searches to verify (or disprove) my hunch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More data. Usage on Irish websites strongly prefers "lakes":

	Lakes	Loughs	Notes
gov.ie	549 hits	230 hits	results for "loughs" are overhelmingly about sea loughs, not lakes. The Loughs Agency deals specifically with sea loughs.
irishtimes.com	529 hits	211 hits	If I exclude the "Loughs Agency", then there are only 122 hits for Loughs
thejournal.ie	638 hits	42 hits

I originally nominated these cats as a speedy, but that was objected to[1] by @Johnbod, so I spent the best part of an hour compiling the first set of data. Now I have spent another half hour compiling another set of data in response to @Grutness.

I know that both editors mean well ... but please can anyone else who wants to weigh in against this actually do their own homework, rather than running off hunches? This simple renaming has taken a wholly disproportionate amount of my time

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but for some reason google wasn't giving me page counts for .ie only sites, otherwise I would have done so. Sorry for the extra work. I must admit to being very surprised about the result however - though I must admit that I was perhaps biased by having a lot of Irish relations. Grutness...wha? 13:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for a speedy are tightly defined (yet still very often abused). I make no apologies for challenging it before this data was produced, and the messy Scottish situation (in the only other country to use "Loch/lough" much) is probably itself enough to trigger this bit of the speedy verbiage: "This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination." So here we are. It is obviously for nominators to do the "homework" and make their case. CfD has always been largely defined by people "running off hunches" in any case. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Is getting perilously close to WP:OR. "in English, they are collectively referred to in English as "lakes"" - would need proof of that. Also, should a parent category name follow the main article name? If it's called Lough Derg (Shannon), shouldn't the sole occupant of Category:Loughs of County Tipperary‎ follow it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laurel Lodged: No WP:OR. For proof, see the data I posted above, esp the results from gov.ie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am neutral on this, an issue that should be sorted out by Irish WPans. However, as a general principle, it is not necessary for every subcat to conform to its parent: local useage is welcome, indeed encouraged. My recollection is that maps in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) commonly use the Irish Lough, rather than English lake, so that I tend to lean towards Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the data provided by nominator and (so far) no convincing arguments given against these data. It goes without saying that I do not have any knowledge about the topic, at times that is an advantage. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it boils down to what Irish English uses per WP:ENGVAR. It appears that Irish English (from the government of the Republic) usage favors Lakes over Loughs. That result dovetailing well with the rest of the tree's nomenclature is just gravy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at Category:Lakes by country, Category:Loughs of the Republic of Ireland‎ is the only member not named "Lakes of X". I don't see sufficient reason for Ireland to be such a single exception. To me "Loughs" is an unnatural, if well-intentioned, construct. While a named lake is very often called by its Lough name (in speech and writing), e.g. Lough Corrib, lakes in a general plural or indirect sense are referred to as "lakes". Except in a named list, e.g. Loughs Corrib and Mask. E.g. "the Cavan landscape features a large number of small, glacial lakes". Or "if one also excludes the lakes from the Shannon's freshwater flow". I've worked on a few of the Ireland lake articles and always cringed a little when adding one of the above county categories! For what it's worth, Commons uses "Lakes of" categories for Ireland. I'd also suggest moving the article List of loughs of Ireland to List of lakes of Ireland. That talk page briefly proposed this a while back. Thanks Declangi (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Googling "Lough Allen, Lough Ree and Lough Derg", my top 10 hits all describe them as lakes, not loughs. Google Books is the same, except for Fodor's Guides which say "a series of loughs (lakes)". Therefore "Lakes" per WP:COMMONNAME. Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scolaire: well done thinking of that clever search. The 3 major lakes of the River Shannon are often discussed together, so checking the collective noun for them is a very good test. Wish I had thought of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 16 April 2018 (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:United States private paramilitary groups

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States private paramilitary groups to Category:Paramilitary organisations based in the United States

Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories - and giving a wider scope. Use of the word "private" isnt very illuminating in this context. Rathfelder (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with the usual US spelling "organizations" (much though it pains me to say so) Grutness...wha? 01:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"organizations" is fine by me. Rathfelder (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should also consider reviewing Category:Right-Wing Militia as well to be merged into this and Category:Political violence in the United States for sake of consistency. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 11:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several of these militia are or were paramilitary organizations, so there is overlap. But Category:Political violence in the United States focuses on specific incidents of violence (massacres, riots, bombings, etc.), not on the organizations involved. Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2018 (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:Proto-facsists

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: speedy delete per WP:G7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting category:Proto-facsists

Nominator's rationale: ‎Dumb spelling error. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - you could use {{db-author}}. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (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 for Research and Enlightenment

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Association for Research and Enlightenment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This ought to be merged not deleted, but where? I not that the main article has a mass of tags including COI and ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The eponymous article is already in Category:New religious movements and Category:Religious organizations established in 1931, so I do not think there is any merge needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2018 (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.