Category talk:Explorers from the Republic of Venice

Italy Category‑class

	Italy portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Proposed move[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Historians from the Republic of Venice to Category:Republic of Venice historians – C2C in Category:Republic of Venice people. Although the revised name could be taken as ambiguous, it follows the others in Category:Historians by nationality. – Fayenatic London 07:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Explorers from the Republic of Venice to Category:Republic of Venice explorers
  - Oppose, because of the ambiguity already discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14. Sionk (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, well spotted. Wouldn't the same arguments apply to all of Category:Historians by nationality and Category:Explorers by nationality? Mass nomination, anyone? – Fayenatic London 17:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Fayenatic london: Good point. I agree the same arguments would apply to all of these, and am preparing a mass nomination for the smaller one, Category:Explorers by nationality. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't really see how the same argument applies generally to Category: Italian explorers, Category: French historians etc. The earlier debate arose because there is no descriptive adjective for people from the Republic of Venice. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe it's unnecessary in Europe, but the category names in Europe should follow those required for places that were explored (OK, by Europeans, we know...)
        
        Anyway, this speedy nomination for Explorers will not be C2C if the rest are renamed the other way at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_18#Category:Explorers_by_nationality. Historians should probably follow. – Fayenatic London 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sionk: As there was a strong consensus at that CfD to keep the existing convention for Fooian explorers, the proposal here is C2C after all; so do you withdraw your opposition, at least for the explorers category? – Fayenatic London 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why would I do that? The category has already been renamed following a CfD. These are explorers/historians from the Republic of Venice, not of the Republic of Venice. Unlike many other nationalities, there is no adjective to describe people from the Republic of Venice. It's pointless blndly following convention when there is no 'one size that fits all'. Sionk (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sionk: Because the parent is Category:Republic of Venice people, which contains many more occupations named like that. The point of the 2014 CfD was to insert "Republic of" in place of Venetian. By the consensus of the latest CfD, which rejected using "from" in all other cases, the 2014 participants worried too much when they put the location at the end of the name instead of the beginning to avoid ambiguity. – Fayenatic London 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        We could just renominate it for a full discussion. I supported the previous renaming, but in light of the more recent outcome, I would be happy to support changing it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Fayenatic london: As you can see the previous CfD discussion for historians and explorers (separate from all other professions) was raised to avoid ambiguity in these two specific categories. As was raised in the other Cfd, New Zealand suffers the same issues (there's no adjective 'Newzealandish'). Well, if the consensus is to restore this confusing ambiguity then so be it, I don't have the time or inclination to spend more time on these daft 'one size fits all' arguments. Sionk (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sionk: Category definitions can be used to resolve any ambiguity that exists for a category based on its name if the ambiguity results from the name conforming to a convention. A sizable portion of category names are not 100% unambiguous, so this is not a new problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Who reads category definitions before adding a category? No one. A simple and practical solution would be to name categories so they are unambigious, rather than a rigid "This category was named that way, so all similar categories must follow regardless". Sionk (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sionk: We have no way of knowing one way or the other the percentage of readers that read category headers, so I'm not sure how you are so sure that "no one" does. (I, for one, do read them when they are there – so your (perhaps exaggerrated?) opinion can't be correct.) Anyways, thinking more broadly, categories cannot always be 100% unambiguous, so the solution you propose is neither simple nor practical in many circumstances. Thinking of the category scheme as a whole, I think it makes more sense (and would generally be more helpful) to bring as much predictability and standardization as possible to the system, and then issues of relatively minor ambiguity could be dealt with through category definitions. It has the added beauty of being generally in line with current and historical practice on Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.