Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 24

: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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:West Virginia Treasuer elections to :Category:West Virginia Treasurer elections ‎

:Nominator's rationale: Duplicate cats (one its a typo) SecretName101 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The target category only has redirects. I am less than convinced we need it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- The subject is empty and only exists because of a typo. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete justified, just as Peterkingiron stated above. --Just N. (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2022 (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.

: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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Films based on theme-park attractions to :Category:Films based on amusement park attractions

:Nominator's rationale: Moving to a full CfD after the below comments during the initial speedy C2A proposal. Needs to be renamed because the hyphenation is incorrect, but it was also recommended that the title use "amusement park" vice "theme park" along the lines of C2D. With multiple variables, opening a full CfD for consensus. I agree with the proposal from {{u|UnitedStatesian}}. - 2pou (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Comments at the speedy rename proposal:}}

• :Category:Films based on theme-park attractions to :Category:Films based on theme park attractions – C2A: "theme park" should not be hyphenated. -- 2pou (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Main article is at Amusement park, cat should be :Category:Films based on amusement park attractions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have no objection to this alternate proposal. Does it still qualify for a speedy rename, or does it now need a full CfD nom? -2pou (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• : It is safer to go to a full discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Support as proposer of this alternative. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of hyphen, wherever the category ends up, the current hyphenation is correct, as the "theme-park" / "amusement-park" acts as a compound modifier to "attraction". See [https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp] and [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/hyphen-with-compound-modifiers]. Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• :I disagree that this is a compound modifier in this use. This is a compound noun (from the same grammar sources: [https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/nouns/compound-noun/ GrammarBook] [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/compound-nouns/ Grammarly]). Linking from Grammarly again, [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/open-and-closed-compound-words/ compound words] can use modifiers as you say, but in this case, "theme park" or "amusement park" is not describing the attraction, it is all part of the same specific thing. On top of that, I cannot find any published examples of the hyphenated form searching for these terms: "theme-park ride", "theme-park food", "fun-house mirror", "amusement-park physics"—everything I come across uses open compound word forms. -2pou (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• :It is not a compound adjective, and having no hyphen is consistent with longstanding Wikipedia practice: see :Category:Amusement park attractions and the many, many categories underneath that parent category. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Aren't theme park and amusement park actually synonyms? Just a matter of taste which one to prefer? Well, IMHO definitely without hyphenation. --Just N. (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom - as a lot of entries for amusement park given. --Just N. (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2022 (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.

: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: keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:English footballers to :Category:English female footballers and :Category:English male footballers

:*Propose merging :Category:English women's footballers to the new :Category:English female footballers

:Nominator's rationale: Per the usual structure and naming convention for this kind of sports category (and the fact there are plenty of entries to justify a proper male/female split) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems to needs a broader discussion as there is no scheme for :Category:Male footballers or :Category:Female footballers and the categorization for women footballers falls under the scheme of :Category:Women's association football players by nationality. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We recently established consensus to rename many hundreds of categories to use "women" rather than "female"; the former is definitely preferred. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a non-starter per Women's association football, {{cl|Women's association football}}. There might be something to be said for a 'proper' male/female split (starting at {{cl|Association football players}}, not in some random sub-sub-branch). Oculi (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a proposal to move men's footballers into subcategories at (currently non-existent) :Category:Men's association football players, but the proposal needs to start there and encompass all the categories. This is a much needed move because the current situation can lead to mixed categories for separated sports, and even more importantly most of England's most famous sportsmen are not listed under :Category:English sportsmen (the current non-gendered structure would push women into the men's tree if we added it. The sport is typically known as the men's or women's game, so there is no need to change the women's tree. SFB 01:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose women instead of female has consensus throughout Wikipedia. And needs a broader discussion on football/sports WikiProject whether to create a men's categories too (and that doesn't need a CfD to do so). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above. Firstly, the proposed new names are inconsistent with current naming conventions. Secondly, this needs a different discussion not at CFD. Thirdly, there are arguments related to PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 10:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per convention and PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• I would support globally splitting sports which are segregated by gender. Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

:* That would result in a :Category:English men's footballers of perhaps 40K entries, how useful is that? If anything, better diffuse the current over 20K articles in :Category:English footballers to county and city subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

::*I would support that too. Rathfelder (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*The issue with that - how do you decide where somebody is "from"? GiantSnowman 21:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::::* I agree that the question where somebody is from is not always easy to answer, but that is a more general problem of the trees of :Category:People by populated place and :Category:People by country subdivision. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (as nom) -- In recent years, Women's football has become a professional sport, so that women footballers will get articles. Women do not play for clubs in the men's leagues or vice versa, so that there should be parallel trees. We should however retain the subject as a parent container, with subcats for men footballers (not male) and women footballers (not female). Much of the content of the current article (men) needs to be moved to a separate :Category:English men footballers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above. --Just N. (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment While we should not be moving to male/female (see women's association football), I think it would be reasonable to discuss whether to split the men's and women's football category trees. For example see {{cat|Volleyball players by nationality}}, which is subdivided into {{cat|Men's volleyball players by nationality}} and {{cat|Women's volleyball players by nationality}}. This would also allow footballers to be categorised under {{cat|Sportsmen by nationality}}, which would be useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2022 (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.

: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 the Big Bopper and the Warren Brothers, no consensus for The Game. bibliomaniac15 07:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Songs written by The Game (rapper) to :Category:Songs written by the Game (rapper)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Songs written by The Big Bopper to :Category:Songs written by the Big Bopper

:* Propose renaming :Category:Songs written by The Warren Brothers to :Category:Songs written by the Warren Brothers

:Nominator's rationale: Lower case 'the' in running prose per MOS:THEMUSIC and MOS:NICKNAMETHE. Previous categories of this type have been renamed for the same reason, for instance the collection discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 6#Category:Song recordings produced by The KLF a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:Adding two more of the same type. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I was a bit surprised, but it seems this is consistent with similar main space list titles such as List of songs recorded by the Beatles and List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones. This follows the established precedent. -2pou (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support two but keep "The Game", as "The" seems to be consistently capitalised in his case, see e.g. 100 (The Game song) and Better on the Other Side. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 6 March 2022 (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.

: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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Shlomo Artzi}}

:Nominator's rationale: Minimal content. Unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2022 (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.

: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. Of the current contents, only Stocksquest belongs in all three targets; I will move Acquire and Kabu Trader Shun only to the first target. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Stock market simulators to :Category:Stock market, :Category:Financial markets software and :Category:Simulation software

:Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. (Software to simulate the stock market should not be confused with software to predict the stock market. There is much more of the latter but that is not the scope of this category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2022 (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.

: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 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Actinobacteria to :Category:Actinomycetota

:Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Actinobacteria") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Actinomycetota).[https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/pubmed/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.005056] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - and will supportthe other bacterial phyla name changes --awkwafaba (📥) 12:53, 24 January 2022 (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.