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: Not moved. Timrollpickering 17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:High school students who committed suicide to Category:High school students who completed suicide Category:High school students who died by suicide

Edit 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC): per discussion, see below for the inclusion of additional categories that would be affected by the proposed change ("committed" to "died by"), with preserved placement in the Category:Suicides by occupation tree:

Edit 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC): requesting assistance for tagging pages! I've left a message on the project's talk page here.

Nominator's rationale: Hi there! I am recommending that this category be renamed from the current "committed suicide" language to the suggested "completed suicide" language. The term "committed" infers a negative connotation, whereas the term "completed" (or other alternatives, such as "died by") is a more factual, connotation-less means of expressing the cause of death. While "committed suicide" may still be a popular vernacular term, I do not believe that it is encyclopedic to use this negative language when more neutral language will suffice. In addition, the term "completed" is preferred by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Beck Classification of Suicidal Behaviour, as you can read about here. I would appreciate your thoughts on this suggestion! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• inclined to oppose With all due respect to the institute, this is essentially an attempt to substitute a euphemism for the commonly used language. In the name of neutrality, it is not for us to be taking sides in the morality of killing oneself. I'm rather doubtful that the claim they make is even true, but be that as it may, they aren't the only authority here. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for coming to discuss! If your concern is about taking sides on a moral issue, I share that exact concern—I would note that, however, by leaving the current language of "committed," we arguably are taking sides on the morality of killing oneself, and that's the problem. The suggested "completed" (or alternative "died by") language does not take a moral stance, and is a nonmoral, factual statement of the cause of death. On the matter of being an authority, the NIMH is stated as "the largest research organization in the world specializing in mental illness" in the suicide terminology article (and in the lead section of its own article), which I would think represents a useful guideline for our project.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 14:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also inclined to oppose - even in the Suicide terminology article the expression "to complete suicide" is described as one supported by advocacy groups, not as the standard Eng lang expression. I suppose an alternative which avoids the overtone of suicide as crime might be Category:High school students who killed themselves, although that wd imply renaming the whole Suicide tree. Eustachiusz (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment and suggestion! As I concede in my rationale that the term "committed" is a popular vernacular term, I would note that the expression "to complete suicide" is both one that is supported by advocacy groups (as you mentioned), but also by experts. Just because most people call it a "heart attack" doesn't mean we should avoid using the technical term "myocardial infarction" for the page; by extension, I believe we should follow the larger consensus of experts on this terminology, as evidenced by the NIMH's position. I agree that "kill themselves" would be an acceptable, alternate terminology as well due to its neutrality (if you wish to avoid the term "completed"), though I would prefer the term, "died by suicide" to employ the word "suicide" itself. On your last point, I'm not familiar with the "suicide tree" you mentioned; can you please link it here? Is this it? On the List of suicides page, the terminology "died from suicide" is used in the lead section.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry - I should have been clearer about the "Suicide tree": I meant all the sub-categories (and their sub-categories) under the top category Category:Suicide. The reason why I'm hesitant about the expression "to complete suicide" is that unlike myocardial infarction it doesn't seem (yet) to be completely accepted as THE standard technical expression in the field so this is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. I'd be happy to support Category:High school students who died by suicide (and all the other groups of people in the present "committed suicide" cats, which would also need to be changed for consistency) - as you say, that retains the word "suicide". Eustachiusz (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries—thank you for the link! I would be comfortable with the "died by" terminology too, as well as applying it uniformly to Category:Suicide.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not supporting this, but "died by" would be ok - per discussions above. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "committed suicide" is the normal parlance and is the title of nearly all the sister categories at Category:Suicides by occupation; is there a reliable source for "completed suicide" being in greater use than "committed suicide"? If not, it may be a MOS:NEO? Per Wikipedia:Category_names standard naming conventions apply, and per WP:CRITERIA, there really is nothing wrong with "committed suicide" as used for people who killed themselves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response! Per your request for a reliable source, I would refer you to the NIMH, whom exclusively uses the language "completed" instead of "committed." Per their FAQ, "It’s best to avoid the use of terms like 'committing suicide' or a 'successful suicide' when referring to a death by suicide as these terms often carry negative connotations." The term "died by suicide" is used here, and their official reporting guidelines (cited in Suicide terminology) are to use the term "completed suicide." The point is not about what the hoi polloi generally use, but what the experts use (see my analogy of "heart attack" and "myocardial infarction" above).―Biochemistry🙴❤ 04:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "committed suicide" is the common English term. NIMH may be using "completed" to enable them to bring it together with "attempted". I would not oppose moving to "died by suicide", though I am very dubious in how many cases the subject will be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response! While "committed suicide" is the term used by the common person, it is not the term that is used by the common expert. By your rationale, we should list myocardial infarction as heart attack, because that's the term used by the common person. I'm glad that you would at least support the latter terminology; I have amended the proposal to represent the support for "died by" in place of "committed." ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, @Biochemistry&Love: none of the nominated categories has been tagged, which implies that there hasn't been any alerting. You should do that or otherwise, most likely, a closing admin will close the discussion as "keep" on procedural grounds. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the helpful information. I'll tag a few of them now, but I'm hoping for help in that task (given the large number of pages); I left a message on the project talk page to request assistance for that task. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming category tree as suggested. As a transitive verb, it is not necessary that a committed act must correlate with a crime. Webster gives the first meaning of commit as: "to carry into action deliberately" and gives the intransitive verb: "to perpetrate an offense" as obsolete.[1] The Thesaurus gives complete as a synonym of commit which begs to know why it would otherwise be acceptable where commit is averred not to be.[2] This question has been asked before; failing to gain consensus. While consensus can change, I don't see a compelling reason to support such a change at this time.--John Cline (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Vehemently support I agree that committed infers a negative connotation, as discussed above: "The term "committed" infers a negative connotation, whereas the term "completed" (or other alternatives, such as "died by") is a more factual, connotation-less means of expressing the cause of death." Waddie96 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 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.

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: Close and recommend a new broader nomination. This discussion is complicated by user conduct issues and other categories have been created. It's best to start from scratch on this. Timrollpickering 00:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Engravers from the Republic of Geneva to Category:Swiss engravers

Nominator's rationale: New cat, 4 entries. The Republic of Geneva did apparently claim to be independent for short periods before Napoleon, but we have never accepted it as a nationality. The editor who created the category has been edit-warring to keep it in Category:Engravers by nationality, and out of Category:Swiss engravers. Not needed, and certainly not as a new nationality. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are tons more. He's either a complete idiot, or cunning, & hasn't set up a holding "People from the Republic of Geneva", but from his contributions one can see:

• Category:Executed people from the Republic of Geneva - 3
• Category:Writers from the Republic of Geneva - 12
• Category:Artists from the Republic of Geneva - 7
• Category:Scientists from the Republic of Geneva - 21
• Category:Theologians from the Republic of Geneva - 15
• Category:Clockmakers from the Republic of Geneva - 4
• Category:Politicians from the Republic of Geneva - 8

-All in a "by nationality" cat, and not in the "Swiss" one. All need treating the same way, but I haven't tagged them. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose to merging User:Johnbod doesn’t appear to be aware of the very long existence of the Republic of Geneva (1541-1815). Genevan from this period with a page on Wikipedia are very numerous, were not Swiss, and should not be referred as Swiss. It is for instance quite absurd to qualify Marie Huber or John Calvin or Francis Turretin of « Swiss theologians ». I would not object, however, to moving these to a category including former countries, like for instance Category:Scientists from the Republic of Geneva is a subcategory of Category:Scientists of former countries. Sapphorain (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:OCLOCATION. However, please be kind enough to avoid personal attacks and assume good faith for the sake of the discussion! Place Clichy (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator may have a point though. According to Brittannica [3] the admission of Geneva to Switzerland was vetoed by the Catholic Swiss cantons and Geneva has remained an independent republic for almost three centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - like many other Swiss cantons? All the German princely states were independent for most of the 19th-century - post end of HRE and before the German Empire. That way madness lies. Note he is refusing to categorize them as Swiss at all. Johnbod (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not helpful to remove them from Swiss trees. But we do have quite a few category trees for German princely states as well, e.g. Category:Duchy_of_Brunswick-Lüneburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are single undivided "people from place" categories, like we have for everywhere, and relate to all periods. Of course, we have had Category:People from Geneva (city) and Category:People from the canton of Geneva for ever (which of course he has not integrated with). These ones are totally different. Johnbod (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No the category only relates to the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg during its existence, just like with the Republic of Geneva. But yes you are right that it needs to be linked properly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that doesn't seem to be true, if you wade through the many, many changes of name, boundary and status - eg what is Julius Henry, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg doing here. The point remains that these people remain in "German fooer" categories. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• May I point that on WP:FR we have the super category « Personnalité liée à la République de Genève » [4] (which I didn’t create). This is a very good solution, as this way we don’t have to constantly remind contributors that the included personalities are not Swiss but Genevans. Without categories of the Republic of Geneva, the problem is that an engraver, say, will only be categorized as « Engraver », as he or she cannot be categorized as «  Swiss engraver ».Sapphorain (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - fr:Catégorie:Personnalité suisse par canton includes fr:Catégorie:Personnalité_liée_à_la_République_de_Genève so WP:FR does categorise them as Swiss. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FR does not really categorise them as Swiss, as fr:Catégorie:Ancien pays d'Europe also contains fr:Catégorie:Personnalité_liée_à_la_République_de_Genève. Sapphorain (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So it is linked both ways, and that should be done here as well. I've created a container Category:People from the Republic of Geneva (1541–1815) now in order to ensure proper linking. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sapphorain (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But these are still removed from "Swiss engravers" etc, which remains unacceptable. Marcocapelle, time to come off the fence - either we say this, and eventally probably some 150 other historical "nationalities" (Germany, Italy, India - most of the world in fact), is ok as the only nationality, or we merge into Swiss, possibly keeping these as only extra categories. This is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. In fact, according to Name of Switzerland, Switzerland and Swiss were in use in both the local languages and English throughout the period of the Republic of Geneva, and Geneva would have been included in them, just as German states were still thought of as in Germany and full of Germans long before a modern German state existed (despite the regular efforts of ill-informed editors to pursuade us otherwise). My opposition to these categories strengthens the more I look at them. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added Category:Swiss engravers as a parent category of Category:Engravers from the Republic of Geneva, and done similarly for the other categories mentioned. No more needs to be done from my perspective. The only reason to merge these categories would be in case we would no longer allow any people by former country categories but that would really require a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that too, already, but then he reverted me. As soon as this is closed, he will probably do the same to you - he has stated that Genevans are not Swiss more than once. This is complete bullshit - the Republic of Geneva should not be accepted among the very small number of "Former countries" we allow - if it is every petty duchy and rajah-ship will be too. This is crazy. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sapphorain: Your reaction is needed here. For background info: we normally parent People from former country categories such that they can also be traced via the tree of the current country. For example Category:People from Brunswick-Lüneburg is parented to Category:People from former German states in Lower Saxony; Category:People from the county of Flanders‎ is parented to Category:Medieval Flemish people while Category:Flemish people is parented to Category:People by region in Belgium; etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What User:Johnbod did after I created this engravers category was to replace the single parent Category:Engravers by nationality by Category:Swiss engravers. This was of course not acceptable. I have no objection if both stay. By the way, I have never stated that Genevans are not Swiss, but that Genevans of the 18th century were not Swiss, which is an historical fact. Finally the number of former countries considered in certains categories is far from « very small » : in the Category:People by former country there are nearly 200 entries. Sapphorain (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said! Afaik all of the Category:People by former country sub-cats have a modern national parent. Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please if both of you accept both parent categories then everyone is happy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will MOST CERTAINLY NOT BE HAPPY. We should be extremely sparing with "Profession by former micro-state" categories. I'm amazed there is not more concern about this. Is there any serious literature on "Engravers from the Republic of Geneva" treated as a group or topic? No! Did they have a distinct style? No! If we applied this to Italy, Category:Italian painters would just become a forest of sub-cats, and you would need to know which city the person you were looking for came from to find them. As it is there are a lot of them, but they are organized by period and century, as well as city. And here the regional styles have always been recognised as very distinct, and treated as such in art history, unlike the present case. Likewise Germany. He has been doing earlier monkeying about like this, which goes against all RS - for example ULAN, the best reference for such things - this lists 7 varieties of his name, but only one nationality - "Swiss" (they aren't afraid to list variant nationalities when the sources disagree). Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Swiss engravers and Dutch engravers have a different style? Maybe, maybe not, but the only reason we have them in different categories is that we diffuse engravers by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The republic existed 1541-1815 as a self-governing city-state, which was in "perpetual alliance" with the Swiss Confederation from 1584, but apparently not technically part of it. There was a short break under Napoleon. Ultimately, this might be regarded as one of a number of states that emerged as fragments of the Holy Roman Empire that ceased to be part of it. Lichtenstein and Monaco being surviving examples, and the Papal State of Avignon and the Principality of Orange former ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, and do we have Category:Artists from the Principality of Orange? Do we we want that? Especially if it means they are removed from French artists? No! Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And now he is REVERTING TO STOP MY CORRECTIONS. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Peterkingiron, the "Genevan Republic" was, as I understand it, technically part of the Holy Roman Empire until it was dissolved in 1805 or whenever, just like any German duchy. We should treat it the same way as them. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orange (and Avignon) were not part of France in this period. Technically it was part of HRE, but to categorise it do would be misleading, as normally HRE = Germany. I see no problem in categorising people as "from Geneva". This is no worse than having a category for Genoa or Lucca, both of which were small independent republics. The greater problem is how to parent these. Possibly we need a parent category for small states in southern Europe. The English WP has adopted a policy of using contemporary (not current) polities. Arguments below from the policy of foreign WPs do not help, nor will the policies of biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been said many times here, the problem is not "categorising people as "from Geneva"", which of course we already did with Category:People from Geneva (city) and Category:People from the canton of Geneva, but removing them from all "Swiss" categories and removing all mention of "Swiss" from the articles. Do you see a problem with that? Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge: Anyone in doubt about this should try googling the names in Category:Artists from the Republic of Geneva +the word artist (e.g., Pierre Soubeyran artist) and see what comes up in reliable sources. Sources that Wikipedia should follow. Ewulp (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to mention the following document supporting my point of view (opposing merge): Circulaire de l’Office fédéral de la justice du 1er décembre 2008, article 2.2.2: « En outre, une personne décédée ne peut ni acquérir ni perdre la nationalité suisse après son décès ». (« Besides, a deceased person can neither acquire nor lose the Swiss nationality after death » )Sapphorain (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is guidance about still born children. A 21st century administrative document of that nature is entirely irrelevant a discussion of the nationality of people from 1815 or earlier. Please provide some reliable sources describing any of these people as "Genevan". 213.205.240.200 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This document is not irrelevant at all. It concerns primarily still born children, true, but it is released by the Department of Justice of the Swiss confederation, and its article 2.2.2 is applicable to any person. It follows from it that an individual cannot acquire the Swiss citizenship after his/her death, and thus that Jean-Etienne Liotard was not and will never be Swiss. He was born and died in the Republic of Geneva, and thus was a Genevan. Sapphorain (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ... I also would like to bring to the discussion the fact that in WP:FR we have the super category fr:Catégorie:République_de_Genève, which was not created by me, and which contains fr:Catégorie:Personnalité_liée_à_la_République_de_Genève. Sapphorain (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you have been editing those too, changing the nationalities from Swiss to "Genevan"! I wonder how long those will stand. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment taking into account old subdivisions no more in existence is not only done for the Republic of Geneva, see also e.g. fr:Catégorie:Pays_de_Savoie (includes among others sub-categories births, deaths, personnalities), fr:Catégorie:Pays-Bas espagnols (births and deaths), fr:Catégorie:Royaume de Sardaigne (births, deaths and Personnalités politiques). Linking "both ways", through the name of the old subdivision and the name of the present subdivision, makes its possible to find the information whatever the logic of searching user is. --MHM (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about "taking into account" here. These Genevans have been removed from ALL swiss categories, and all mention of "Swiss" removed from their articles. The French ones you mention all have the "usual" categories and mentions, indeed, they are also in categories like "Catégorie:Personnalité belge du XVIIe siècle", which are rather controversial here. Not that what the French WP does matters in the slightest here anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 17 June 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.

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. Timrollpickering 10:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All of the entries have been added because of the title. There are 6 songs called 'Lucky Star' are they all about 'Stars? Is 'Stardust' about stars? There is nothing to really join these songs except for a word in the title. This is NOT what categorisation is for, categorisation is to bring together DEFINING aspects of the subject, not just the title. Richhoncho (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Category creator is getting out of hand with some of these "songs by theme" categories by using it to basically categorize by a common word in the title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete considering that most of these songs aren't about stars anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm no fan of "things about X" because we lack criteria to determine how much about X the thing must be and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much about it. Even were I to put that reservation to the side, this category fails as it seems less about whether the categorized song is "about stars" than whether the song's title has "star" or its French equivalent in its title. A no-no per WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 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.

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. Timrollpickering 10:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Camelon F.C. players to Category:Camelon Juniors F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: As per the Tranent discussion, this club has opted to retain the "Juniors" part of its identity despite having left the junior leagues to join a "senior" league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 11:46, 11 June 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.

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: Nomination withdrawn Hhkohh (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tranent Juniors F.C. players to Category:Tranent F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: The club has recently left the junior leagues to enter a "senior" league, and therefore the "Juniors" part of the name is now inaccurate. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw, as I have been advised that some of the clubs (Tranent and Camelon) have retained the "Juniors" part of their identity despite moving into a "senior" league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 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.

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. Timrollpickering 10:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Dunipace Juniors F.C. to Category:Dunipace F.C.
• Propose renaming Category:Dunipace Juniors F.C. players to Category:Dunipace F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: The club has recently moved from the junior leagues to the "senior" leagues, and has consequently dropped "Juniors" from its name. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:@Jmorrison230582: I have merged 2 renaming discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 11:45, 11 June 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.

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 08:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Alumni by university or college in the Palestinian territories to Category:Alumni by university or college in the State of Palestine
• Propose renaming Category: People by university or college in the Palestinian territories‎ to Category: People by university or college in the State of Palestine

Nominator's rationale: renaming was opposed in this batch discussion while it was supported in this next batch discussion so I'm nominating these two categories separately now. @Greyshark09, Laurel Lodged, and Place Clichy: pinging participants to previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Greyshark09, Laurel Lodged, and Place Clichy: trying pinging for the second time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: It worked this time , thanks . Place Clichy (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Now that Universities and colleges in the State of Palestine and Faculty by university or college in the State of Palestine have been moved, these 2 really stand out. These cats are not in any way specific to the 1967-2012 period. We don't usually sort alumni cats by past political regime. It would be like having a Alumni by university in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801) for the sake of placing Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge and Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford etc. in it. It wouldn't make sense, nor would splitting alumni categories by historical period. @Marcocapelle: the notification didn't work, for some reason. Place Clichy (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - i'm not inclined to oppose, due to the article name change.GreyShark (dibra) 13:00, 15 June 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.

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: Not rename. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by country to Category:People in sports by country

Renaming Category:Sportspeople in Finland to Category:People in sports in Finland

Renaming Category:Sportspeople in Russia to Category:People in sports in Russia

Renaming Category:Sportspeople in Sweden to Category:People in sports in Sweden

Renaming Category:Sportspeople in Finland to Category:People in sports in Finland

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by country and by club or team to Category:People in sports by country and by club or team

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by nationality to Category:Sports competitors by nationality (++ all national subcategories - can anyone help with tagging here?)

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by national team to Category:Sports competitors by national team

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality to Category:Sports competitors by sport and nationality

Renaming Category:Lists of sportspeople by sport and nationality to Category:Lists of sports competitors by sport and nationality

Renaming Category:Sportspeople with disabilities by sport and nationality to Category:Sports competitors with disabilities by sport and nationality

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by position to Category:Sports competitors by position

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by club or team to Category:Sports competitors by club or team

Merging Category:Sportspeople by cause of death to Category:People in sports by cause of death

Renaming Category:Sportspeople who committed suicide to Category:People in sports who committed suicide

Renaming Category:Murdered sportspeople to Category:Murdered people in sports

Renaming Category:Murdered American sportspeople to Category:Murdered American people in sports

Renaming Category:Sportspeople who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:People in sports who died in Nazi concentration camps

Renaming Category:Sportspeople who died in the Holocaust to Category:People in sports who died in the Holocaust

Renaming Category:Sportspeople by century to Category:People in sports by century

Renaming Category:18th-century sportspeople to Category:18th-century people in sports

Renaming Category:19th-century sportspeople to Category:19th-century people in sports

Renaming Category:Indian sportspeople by century to Category:Indian people in sports by century

Renaming Category:18th-century Indian sportspeople to Category:18th-century Indian people in sports

Renaming Category:19th-century Indian sportspeople to Category:19th-century Indian people in sports

Renaming Category:Lists of sportspeople to Category:Lists of people in sports

Renaming Category:Lists of sportspeople by sport to Category:Lists of people in sports by sport

Renaming Category:Lists of sportspeople by sport and nationality to Category:Lists of people in sports by sport and nationality

Renaming Category:Sportspeople in antiquity to Category:Sports competitors in antiquity

Renaming Category:Ancient Greek sportspeople to Category:Ancient Greek sports competitors

Renaming Category:Ancient Greek sportspeople by sport to Category:Ancient Greek sports competitors by sport

Renaming Category:Banned sportspeople to Category:Banned people in sports

Renaming Category:Sportspeople banned for life to Category:People in sports banned for life

Renaming Category:Sportspeople involved in betting scandals to Category:People in sports involved in betting scandals

Renaming Category:Career achievements of sportspeople to Category:Career achievements of sports competitors

Renaming Category:Sportspeople convicted of crimes to Category:People in sports convicted of crimes

Renaming Category:American sportspeople convicted of crimes to Category:American people in sports convicted of crimes

Renaming Category:Cultural depictions of sportspeople to Category:Cultural depictions of people in sports

Renaming Category:Expatriate sportspeople to Category:Expatriate people in sports

Renaming Category:Income of sportspeople to Category:Income of sports competitors

Renaming Category:Images of sportspeople to Category:Images of people in sports

Renaming Category:Intersex sportspeople to Category:Intersex sports competitors

Renaming Category:LGBT sportspeople to Category:LGBT people in sports

Renaming Category:LGBT sportspeople by sport to Category:LGBT sports competitors by sport

Renaming Category:Bisexual sportspeople to Category:Bisexual people in sports

Renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople to Category:Transgender and transsexual people in sports

Renaming Category:Nicknamed groups of sportspeople to Category:Nicknamed groups of people in sports

Renaming Category:Songs about sportspeople to Category:Songs about people in sports

Renaming Category:Wikipedia books on sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia books on sports competitors

Nominator's rationale: Following the outcome of this discussion there have been efforts to move away from the ambiguous "sportspeople" definition towards a Category:People in sports/Category:Sports competitors model which clearly distinguishes the players of sports within a broader category including others involved in the sports industry.

I appreciate this is going to be bit of a sprawling nomination given the long-standing, widespread use of the "sportspeople" phrase, thus this is part one. Work has already been undertaken to create a parent Category:People in sports by nationality structure. The general principles behind the nominations above are as follows:

(a) if parent "people in sports" category already exists, then rename corresponding "sportspeople" category to "sports competitors"

(b) if no "people in sports" category exists and current category covers information on competing and non-competing sportspeople, then rename "sportspeople" to "people in sports"

(c) if category content solely pertains to sports competitors, then rename "sportspeople" to "sports competitors"

Given the partial nature of this nomination, I would appreciate if people could make opposing comments and queries on specific categories, as I imagine some will be more controversial than others. Some parts of the "sportspeople" structure have been left out given the need for more work to divide some structures (mostly nationality ones). Any help with tagging is much appreciated. Thanks. SFB 01:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good idea Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm not seeing the consensus that the nominator is claiming, and the proposed wording is clunky. GiantSnowman 11:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this target - there's a WP:ENGVAR issue here as British English uses the collective noun "sport" not "sports". So I can't support any wording that uses "sports", and "sportspeople" gets round the WP:ENGVAR problem.Le Deluge (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- We have adopted this to cover sportsmen and sportswomen. People in sport is wider, covering coaches, umpires, administrators, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I don't see the problem with the widely understood word 'sportspeople'. The new names are quite ambigious, for example, were Murdered American people in sports murdered in their sports?! Sionk (talk) 21:26, 13 June 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.